From Common To Private Ownership

From common to private ownership
Forest tenure development in Sweden 15002010
Swedens tenure system requires open

dialogue between forest owners and
stakeholders considering multiple user
rights. Private ownership of forest has
contributed to the success of the Nordic
forestry model. Experiences from the tenure development in the Nordic countries have a broad application for global
forest policy.
kungl. skogs- och lantbruksakademiens
tidskrift
Nummer 7 2013
rgng 152
Publisher Carl-Anders Helander, General Secretary and Managing Director, KSLA

Text Fredrik Ingemarson and Jan-Erik Nylund
Layout Ylva Nordin
Illustrations Pelle Forshed
Printed in November 2013
Printed by Gvle Offset AB
Edition 900
ISSN 0023-5350
ISBN 978-91-86573-40-9
All issues published in recent years are available as downloadable files on the Academys website www.ksla.se.
From common to
private ownership
Forest tenure development
in Sweden 15002010
18132013
Summary
Tenure reforms accompany the ongoing re-evaluation of forest natural resource management
around the globe. If programmes for landscape transformation and restoration are to succeed on
a large scale we must learn from failures as well as successes. The different phases of the historical
development of Swedish forest tenure presented in this report can be recognised in other countries
all over the globe, although the length of the phases varies widely depending of the countrys natural conditions, history and governance. The Nordic model, with stable institutions, markets and
clear rules for the actors based on a democratic system and a multi-functional dialogue, creates a
stable ground for the development of a successful tenure system. This report highlights the great
importance of strong tenure rights for the peasants, the importance of the awareness of the values
of forest products as well as other lessons learned during the development of a sustainable tenure
system.
Failures as well as successes during the last 500 years

This issue of the journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA) summarises the forest tenure development in Sweden with failures as well as successes during the last
500 years. Different actors and stages of the tenure development are presented using possession
rights and non-exclusive user rights as a point of departure.
The interplay between Peasant, Crown and Company interests

Decisive for the tenure transformation process in Sweden, starting in the late 17th century, was a
theme successively growing stronger: the interplay between Peasant, Crown and Company interests. Up till the end of the 19th century, the Crown was exercising some kind of dominium directum
over all forestland. Noblemen, companies and tax farmers held dominium utile-style user rights.
After a century-long transition period, around 1900, the idea of inviolable private ownership, or
dominium plenum, had gained general acceptance, whereas the late 20th century saw a re-emergence
of dominium utile-style claims by external stakeholders.
The current structure reflects the objectives two hundred years ago
The driving forces of privatisation in Swedish forestry are seen in relation to the modernisation of
society. The current forest ownership structure reflects the objectives of privatisation of forestland
two hundred years ago. The Crown wished to provide every homestead with enough forest to cover
it subsistence needs for major and minor forest products. Seeing to the number of stakeholders, the
Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademiens TIDSKRIFT nr 7 2013 From common to private ownership
most important privatisation process concerned the partitioning of the commons. The privatisation process gained momentum around 1800, well before the industrial revolution gave forestry
commercial value. As there was little use for the vast timber resource, other than for household
purposes, the Crown initially did not bother to define exact user rights.
An exploitation of the natural resource

Companies became significant for the development with the introduction of industrial forestry.
The privatisation of forest preceded the profound change in mode of production with the introduction of steam-power saw milling from 1850. The period from 1850 to 1900 was highly turbulent
when the full consequences of the transition from forest commons for subsistence to an exploitable
natural resource became obvious. The demographic development accentuated the conflict between
time-old perceptions of everybodys right to products and benefits from the forest and new ideas of
exclusive usufruct by a legally registered owner. Alienation of peasant land, regardless of whether
it occurs through economic change or after expropriation for public use, tends to be socially disruptive.
The law lagged behind

As this partitioning process went on and private ownership in the modern sense de facto took form,
the law lagged behind. Many corporate law infringements, dubious affairs, fraud, and exploitation
of peasant landowners occurred, and much of the accessible forestland was temporarily ruined. The
efforts to settle the interior were largely unsuccessful, and the homesteads were abandoned due to
the extent of labour required to exploit and later restore the vast forests.
A huge restoration and reforest process

Once secure in their tenure, the peasants started exploiting the now valuable timber resource,
then, more reluctantly, began to employ modern management methods in spite of the extremely
long investment horizon in northern silviculture. The Swedish forests and landscape have gone
through a huge restoration process and key success factors have been a strong collaboration between researchers and practitioners as well as a continuous dialogue and well organised education
of the farmers.
A large class of land-owning peasants created political stability

The concept of exclusive forest ownership took root rapidly once subsistence economy had been replaced by a market economic system. The existence of a large class of land-owning peasants created
political stability in a situation where the number of rural landless grew rapidly and urban industry
could not absorb the surplus of labour. Forest work on company and Crown land provided a basic
income for the rural population well into the second half of the 20th century, when mechanisation
drastically reduced the labour force required. Government policy had achieved two goals; one
of fiscal consolidation by increasing the number of taxpayers, and the other of securing political
stability. The outcome was the creation of a quarter million homesteads with 10 million hectares
of forest, all with legal title to their land.
A clear framework adapted to multidimensional interests

Today, the forestry framework is well organised, including environmental measures and clear markets. This implies that the ownership structure and the roles of the actors are well defined. It is clear
that private ownership of forest is a contributing factor to the success of the Nordic forestry model.
A closer look reveals a partly dramatic transition from the tenure forms of traditional society into
present-day forms, and todays ownership model is again contested. At the early 21st century, several actors heavily influenced the policy resulting in a need of forest governance with informative
dialogue platforms adapted to handle swift changes with multidimensional interests. Thus, future
successful forest policies ought to take into consideration the different objectives of land ownership
to different categories of owners, and that user rights concern several recognised users.
The different phases can be recognised all over the globe

The different phases of the development presented in this report can be recognised in other countries all over the globe, although the length of the phases varies widely depending of the countrys
natural conditions, history and governance. It has taken 400 years, and failures as well as successes,
to reach the current status of the Nordic model, whereas for example China aims to reach the same
maturity through tenure reforms within 40 years.
Keywords: forest certification, forest governance, forest ownership structure, forest policy, forestry legislation, partitioning,
property rights, restoration, Sami land use, tenure.
Contents
Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Contents.................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Foreword................................................................................................................................................................... 9
1. The premise of the report........................................................................................................................... 10
Forest a cornerstone in the development of Swedish society 10
Large forests characterise Sweden 11
The tenure development 11
Interpreting the historical development 11
2. The process of modernisation in Europe.............................................................................................. 13
Commons or property of the sovereigns 13
Ownership and user rights 14
From common to private ownership 14
3. Traditional land tenure in Sweden (1650)........................................................................................... 16
A weak government 16
Forestland held in common 16
A rapid expansion in agriculture 17
4. Leading actors in Swedish forest tenure policy.................................................................................. 18
The interplay between the actors 18
The ambitions of the Crown 19
The goal of the Peasants 19
The Companies interest 19
5. Introduction of private ownership of forest land (16501800)...................................................... 20
Customary tenure arrangements 20
Restrictions on traditional user rights 20
Slow privatisation progress 21
Law lagging behind 23
6. Acceleration of privatisation (18001850)............................................................................................. 24
Private initiatives 24
Exponential increase of property prices 26
Accentuated social conflicts 26
7. Full consequences of the transition........................................................................................................ 28

Social consequences for the peasants 28
Economically motivated forest crime 29
Increased sawn goods and pulp export 29
Companies buying rights from the peasants 29
Stop law also in Finland 31
8. Foundation of the Nordic model (19031950)..................................................................................... 32
Exclusive forest ownership 32
The owner distribution 32
Government goals achieved 34
Restoration by means of motivation 34
9. Multidimensional interests (19502010)................................................................................................ 36
Swift policy changes 36
Voluntary areas of joint operations 37
The environmental movement 38
Stronger public rights 38
Maximal production oriented policy 38
User rights of the hunters 39
Shared responsibility 39
Increased NGO influence 40
Third-party forest certification schemes 41
Owner associations and commons 41
Changes in the ownership groups 42
Value shift among small-scale owners 42
The current model Is again contested 44
10. The transition in the North and Sami tenure....................................................................................... 45
Sami rights 45
Reindeer herding rights 46
11. Lessons learned from the transition in Sweden.................................................................................. 47
A balance between possession and user rights 47
Social conflicts and economically motivated crimes 48
Land-owning peasants a political power 48
Inspirational instruments 48
Well defined roles 50
Globally recognized phases 50
A note on sources................................................................................................................................................. 51
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................ 51
References............................................................................................................................................................... 52
Foreword
The interest in rehabilitating degraded forests has increased radically. One reason for this is the
growing interest in furthering the role of forests as a sink for CO2. Reduced deforestation is the
hottest topic at the moment, but the interest to rehabilitate degraded forests is increasing fast.
Successful worldwide rehabilitation, potentially affecting 12 billion ha degraded forests/vegetation, would be good for mankind, but could prove to be a challenge for millions of poor people utilising these areas. This concerns both intensive industrial plantations and small-scale farm forestry.
Forestry actually took Sweden out of poverty. If programmes for restoration are to succeed
on a large scale we must try to learn from failures as well as successes. This is the reason why the
Secretariat for International Forestry Issues (SIFI) during the last years has been inviting several
international organisations to discuss lessons learned from the developments in different parts of
the world, e.g. Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Finland, Indonesia, Kenya, Peru, Portugal,
Russia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, USA and Vietnam. It has been clear that the interest to learn
from failure and success in the development of Swedish forestry is great. The Swedish forests and
landscape has gone through a huge restoration process. The transition from common to private
ownership has been a successful path for Sweden, although not always straight as an arrow.
The Nordic model, with stable institutions, markets and clear rules for the actors based on a
democratic system, creates a stable ground for the development of a successful tenure system. The
strong tenure rights for the farmers have been of great importance.
This issue of the Academys journal describes the tenure development in Sweden, using mainly
Swedish-language material previously unavailable to an international readership. The pictures illustrating the development are specifically produced for this report. The aim is to identify different
actors and stages of the development using possession rights and non-exclusive user rights as a
point of departure. The report is built upon the temporal development and could be used to study
the lessons learned from the different phases of the transition from common to private ownership.
Professor Jan-Erik Nylund has been working with forest policy research at the Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Helsinki University and several universities in Africa
and South America. Dr. Fredrik Ingemarson has experiences from forest policy research at the
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Peking University and the European Forest Institute
in Bordeaux. Their experiences and view upon the development of Swedish forest tenure from an
international perspective should be very useful for an international audience.
Reidar Persson
Prof. SLU and SIFI
The premise of the report
If programmes for transformation and restoration of landscapes

are to succeed on a large scale we must learn from failures as well
as successes from all over the globe. Experiences from the historical development of Swedish forestry, with a history of degraded
forests and a doubling of the standing volume in the forests, have
lots to offer an international audience. Swedens long experience in
managing forests and the resources they provide illustrates the importance of the Nordic forestry model, based on a democratic system with stable institutions, markets and continuous training and
dialogue with scientists and stakeholders. This report highlights
the great importance of strong tenure rights for the peasants, the
importance of awareness of the values of forest products as well
as several other lessons learned during the development of a sustainable tenure system.
The forest a cornerstone in the

development of Swedish society
The forest sector has been one of the cornerstones in the development of the Swedish economy and is currently the largest net export
earning sector. Sweden has about 1 % of the
worlds commercial forest area, but still provides 10 % of the worlds sawn timber, pulp and
paper. Swedish enterprises have been at the
forefront of national and international certification schemes for the forestry sector, as part
of the drive to promote timber as a sustainable raw material. The Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences has recently been evaluated and ranked as first class in several important
areas of forest research.
Formerly, firewood, charcoal and tar were
extracted from the forest, whereas today the
majority of raw material is used for producing
10
pulp and timber. Sweden was a poor country

until the 20th century, marked by centuries of
war on the European continent during the 17th
and 18th centuries. The tenure reforms were a
prerequisite for the increase in Swedish prosperity during the last 150 years. The forest
owner structure resulted in a large number of
small-scale private forest owners enabling an
increased prosperity in the whole society, not
at least in the rural areas. Today, the majority
of the forest land is privately owned. Forests in
Sweden are usually divided into four groups
according to ownership status: private forests,
state-owned forests, community forests and
company forests. Company forests are the most
extensive in the North, whereas in the South
private forests dominate.
Large forests characterise Sweden
The tenure development
The population of Sweden is about nine million

and the area is similar to Spains or Californias
(450,000 km 2). Sweden is characterised by its
large forests, long coastlines, and numerous
lakes. The forest covers 50 % of the land surface, dominated by coniferous forests (Picea
abies and Pinus sylvestris), but in the South often mixed with deciduous trees, such as aspen
(Populus tremula) and birch (Betula pubescens
and Betula pendula). Other hardwoods such as
oak (Quercus robur), beech (Fagus sylvatica), linden (Tilia cordata), maple (Acer platanoides) and
elm (Ulmus glabra) are found up to the border
of Norrland (Limes Norrlandicus). North of this
line, the landscape consists of large forests and
river valleys, hills and mountains. This land
is today used for both forestry and reindeer
husbandry, which is of particular importance
for the Sami culture. The southern part of the
country has a varied terrain of fields, hills and
lakes. Sweden is situated on the border between
the more temperate Atlantic climate zone and
the more extreme continental climate zone.
Sweden has large numbers of moose (Alces
alces), roe deer (Capreolus Capreolus), foxes
(Vulpes vulpes) and hares (Lepus timidus and
Lepus eurapeus). Moose hunting is not only important from an economic point of view, but also
from cultural aspects, especially in the North.
Hunting is strictly regulated and many species are fully protected. The numbers of wolves
(Canis lupus lupus), bears (Ursus arctos) and lynx
(Lynx lynx) are increasing.
In 1910, Sweden was the first European
country to establish National Parks to protect
sensitive natural scenery and cultural heritage.
In Sweden, everyone is entitled to visit forests
and fields picking mushrooms and berries,
under the customary right of common access
(Ingemarson 2004).
Land tenure regimes are intimately coupled to

land use forms, and tenure reforms accompany
the on-going re-evaluation of forest management around the globe (Garforth and Mayers
2005). In public debate, the Nordic countries,
particularly Sweden and Finland, appear to
have reached an age of maturity regarding forest ownership (Palo 2006). However, a closer
look reveals a partly dramatic transition from
the tenure forms of traditional society into present-day forms, and todays ownership model
is again contested. The present report aims at
describing these processes in Sweden, using
mainly Swedish-language material previously
unavailable to an international readership.
This issue of the journal of the Royal Swedish
Academy of Agriculture and Forestry summarises the forest tenure development in Sweden
during the last 500 years. Different actors and
stages of the tenure development are presented
using possession rights and non-exclusive user
rights as a point of departure.
1 The premise of the report
Interpreting the historical

development
Forest tenure concepts in a European context
are analysed by von Below and Breit (1998),
whose views are a starting point for the account
below. Bekele (2003) summarises the classical
contributions to the subject by Locke, Marx,
and Mill, and the modern theorist, Bromley,
with particular reference to a traditional society, Ethiopia, meeting modern perceptions and
political change. A recent study by Fritzbger
(2004) discusses a similar transition in Denmark
over a much longer period, from 1150 to 1830.
The present study is mainly narrative, and the
interested reader is referred to the cited works
for a theoretical framework. However, the dis-
11
tinction between on the one hand formal and

exclusive possession rights and, on the other,
various non-exclusive user rights, as discussed
by von Below and Breit (1998, pp. 4 ff.) is a key
concept for interpreting the historical development of tenure rights in Sweden.
Two themes are evident in the development of forest tenure in Sweden. The first one
concerns the substitution of the older views on
tenure for modern ownership concepts. Up till
the end of the 19th century, the Crown was exercising some kind of dominium directum over
all forestland, evident both through the oak re-
12
gale and its claim to one-third of the commons.

Noblemen, companies and tax farmers held dominium utile-style user rights. After a centurylong transition period, around 1900, the idea of
inviolable private ownership or dominium plenum
(cf. Fritzbger 2004) had gained general acceptance (except by the far left), whereas the late
20th century saw a re-emergence of dominium
utile-style claims by external stakeholders, albeit that term is no longer used: various public
interests were recognised as limiting exclusive
property rights while formal ownership rights
are maintained.
The process of modernisation in

Europe
In pre-modern Europe, the land itself was understood as a gift of God,

as nobody can create more or less of it, and hence it could not be
owned like man-made artefacts, only used. However, cultivated land
was a result of hard labour, and man has right to the fruit of his labour.
This view was a starting point for both Locke and Mill (cf. Bekele 2003),
but has far older roots (cf. von Below and Breit 1998). Hence, cultivated
land could be held with strong tenure rights, and transferred through
inheritance or commercial transactions. Conversely, extensively used
land (e.g. forest) had no distinct owners and was kept as commons by
villages or larger local communities. Little time was invested in maintenance of land outside the fences, and only commodities produced
by Natures bounty were harvested, in the form of grazing, tree felling
or collection of minor forest products.
Commons or property of
the sovereigns
Eliasson (2002) adds to the view of traditional
land tenure being based on the concept of a moral economy. According to this, everybody has a
fundamental right to satisfy basic needs, and
consequently have an equitable share of common resources in the rural society. Accordingly,
parts of the land resource were to be managed
as common property, open to all in the local
community, whether landed or not. This ageold view was considered to be supported by the
Bible.
Against the peasant perspective is the view
that all land is the property of the sovereign or
the ruling classes, a view most clearly expressed
in the classic feudal system, in its strict meaning (cf. Cornell 2005). The Roman Empire
2 The process of modernisation in Europe
with its highly developed civil law never made

claims of general state ownership of conquered
land (although parts could be confiscated for
settlements), but instead focussed on the right
to tax collection. Cornell (2005) deducts the
origin of the feudal social order from the collapse of Empire in the 5th century and onwards,
when new, mostly Germanic, conquerors established their dominion over already settled land.
The new rulers considered themselves the ultimate owners of all the new territories, and the
peasants (peasant etymologically meaning people already living in the country) were according to the conquerors opinion using the land
only by permission.
13
Later takeovers, such as the state-building

by Charlemagne around 800, or the Norman
conquest of Britain in 1066, entrenched this
view; all land belonged to the King, who delegated control to his magnates, who in turn
delegated it to their vassals. Ultimately, where
feudal control was strong, the rural population
was reduced to serfdom with few formal rights.
In other parts of Europe, a class of free peasants
survived, subject only to the ruler. Thinly populated forests and rangelands rarely passed under
strict feudal control.
Ownership and user rights

Legal specialists at the emerging European
universities in the 13th century tried to solve
the conflicting views by seeing land tenure from
two complementary rather than opposing perspectives (von Below and Breit 1998, Fritzbger
2004). The political power had dominium directum, a formal ownership right, including rights
to sell and bequeath the lands. However, to this
came a dominium utile, a user right, or rather
many non-exclusive user rights, which could
be customary or well defined by written agreements and upheld in court. In the less usual
case, where the two dominia were united and a
single person had exclusive ownership and user
rights, the term dominum plenum was applied
(cf. Fritzbger 2004). The holder of a dominium
directum could not legally nullify a dominium
utile, although numerous conflicts arose when
powerful landlords wished to evict rural residents whose livelihoods depended on the user
rights. During the 15th century, such conflicts
arose in England with devastating social consequences; these were exposed by Thomas More
in his famous work Utopia (1516). The English
Forest Laws (e.g. The Black Act of 1723) became
notorious for their extreme harshness even in
14
case of minor infringements, while the peasant

population still harboured notions that they
had been deprived of ancient rights to forests
and rangeland.
From common to private ownership

Privatisation of forest in Europe started later
than privatisation of agricultural land and improved pastures. Large-scale reforms were initiated in France and the German lands in the
wake of turbulence created by the French revolution and Napoleonic wars. von Below and
Breit (1998) dedicate their study to the conflicts
ensuing the transition from common to private
ownership. That is also the background to
Bekeles (2003) study of the transitions between
tenure regimes in Ethiopia during the 20th century.
Writing about the Swedish reforms of forest legislation after 1970, Professor of Law Per
Stjernquist (1993) refers to Renners (1949)
views that property rights have different significance to different categories of owners. To a
present-day investor, land ownership may have
no importance beyond its direct and indirect
economic benefits. To the partners in a housing co-op, access to a suitable dwelling is central, while any possible gain when selling the
apartment is secondary. To peasants all over the
world, farming is a deep-rooted personal and
social identity, land tenure being an indispensable part of it. Furthermore, in traditional society, the fruits of labour were accumulated over
generations in the cultivated land, and holdings were frequently conserved within a family,
a clan or a similar social group. Alienation of
peasant land, regardless of whether it occurs
through economic change or after expropriation for public use, tends to be socially disruptive. The lifestyle connection explains why real
or perceived infringements of individual or

collective tenure rights are such a sensitive issue. Stjernquist (1993) remarks that these observations are in no way novel to rural development sociologists, but they tend to remain
neglected in legislation, where equal application
of the law is essential. A court cannot rule differently with respect to the social profile of the
litigant, lifestyle peasant or commercial forest
farmer. The late 20th century implied a successive rationalisation in agriculture towards
economically sound units in many countries,

making land ownership less of a lifestyle in
some units and more of an economic business.
Conversely, exclusive private ownership of forest, contested in the first half of the 19th century, again became an issue in the wake of conservation and other public interests after 1970;
it is currently a matter of growing controversy
all over the globe, not least in the United States
of America (study the background in Olivetti
and Worsham 2003).
The first pieces of regular forest legislation in Sweden were passed in form of
two forest ordinances in 1647 (original
source material from the Library of the
Academy); one dealing with carrying
trees, including oak and ship building,
and the other concerning restricting
wasteful logging practices and shifting
cultivation in high forest.
2 The process of modernisation in Europe
15
( 1650)
Traditional land tenure in Sweden
In Scandinavia, the feudal system gradually took root in the south

and greatly influenced forest tenure conditions (Fritzbger 2004). The
Jutland Law, codified in 1241, stated (in section I:53), that of the commons, the King owned the land but the peasants the trees, whereas
the Swedish Ostrogothia Law (1350: section JB1) stated that the King
could sell a common to the peasants, implying a dominium directum
over the land (Hoff 1997, p. 255 ff.). Such royal claims were obviously contested, Hoff (1997) comments, as the Scania Law stated that
a council of local stakeholders could authorise the establishment of
new settlements on previously uncultivated commons, no royal rights
were mentioned. Similarly, Eliasson and Hamilton (1999) examine the
situation in the Swedish lands. This section is based on their narrative.
A weak government
The Swedish central government was weak until the ascendancy of the Wasa dynasty in 1523,
and the nobility consisted of great land-owning
families rather than the feudal nobility of continental model. This meant that in the beginning of the early modern era (around 1550),
land tenure was primarily regulated under the
peasant perspective. Tilled land users fell into
three categories: freehold farmers paying tax
to the Crown, crown tenants paying fees not
vastly different from the taxes, or noble families
holding tax-empted land (and frequently taxed
land as well) tilled by peasant tenants paying
dues (the estates were rarely managed directly
by the owner with hired labour). Tax land and
tax-exempted land could be sold, mortgaged,
bequeathed and divided, whereas crown tenancy contracts were normally passed on to the next
generation. Many tenants on the nobilitys taxexempted estates were, in theory, crown tenants
16
paying dues to the nobleman instead of to the

Crown; however, the noble owners tended with
time to consider themselves as true owners of
the land. Perhaps more than a quarter of all
homesteads had previously been held by the
church, but most of these holdings were taken
over by the Crown as a result of religious reform
during the 16th century. In line with established
Swedish terminology, the word Crown is used
for the state in its capacity as property owner
and fiscal agent, while Government is used for
the state as the Executive and policy maker.
Forestland held in common

Rural settlements were organised into villages,
where the agricultural land was split up in numerous plots, the demarcation of which was recognised by the community. The surrounding
forestland was held in common, with right of
access to household timber and firewood, grazing, etc., for both landed and landless local
people. The commons were recognised as belonging to villages, parishes, legal districts [hrad] or even provinces (Eliasson and Hamilton
1999). In less densely settled areas, they were
not demarcated.
In the far North, the Sami population had
distinct tenure rights to most of the highland
areas. In the inland and mountains, Sami people hunted and herded their reindeer under customary regulation of their land use, paying tax
to the Crown.
A rapid expansion of agriculture

Much of the North, as well as forest areas in
the southern and central parts, were sparsely
settled, and the Crown from time to time invited colonists, familiar with shifting cultivation
methods, from the Finnish parts of the realm
to settle in sparsely populated forest areas. The

Helsingland Law (codified in the early 1300s),
valid in the sparsely populated northern twothirds of present-day Sweden, specifically stated that anyone had the right to settle and open
new farmland in no-mans land. Practically all
forest land in the southern provinces up to river Dal was claimed by a community as commons, but sparsely settled regions still existed
where demarcations were missing, and shifting
cultivation was practised. Further to the north,
commons of various types existed, mainly near
settled areas on the coast and along major rivers. Due to intensive settlement, and the addition of former Danish provinces in the South,
the number of rural households tripled over two
centuries. Table 1 provides data on land owning
households in Sweden about the year 1500 (estimates) and 1700 (census data), and illustrates
the rapid expansion of agriculture.
Table 1. Estimated number of rural households in Sweden

Year
1500
1700
Land-owning households tax farmers
35,000
60,000
Crown tenant households crown farmers*
20,000
67,000
Tenant households on tax-exempted nobility estates
12,000
60,000
Total landed households
67,000
187,000
Landless rural households
n.a.
48,000
Total population (individuals)
n.a.
1,780,000
*) By 1500, 16,000 of these tenants were cultivating Church land, to be secularised a few decades later.
Sources: For 1500: Heckscher (1935). For 1700: population statistics from all parishes, compiled in several issues of Statistisk Tidskrift around 1900. Fiscal statistics are available from 1870, whereas reliable area statistics
on landholding were only obtained during the first property inventory in 19271928, at about the same
time as a first national forest inventory was compiled.
3 Traditional land tenure in Sweden ( 1650)
17
Leading actors in Swedish forest

tenure policy
In contrast to general European developments, the Peasants as a social group retained their political freedom and a strong influence on
politics. Of the four Houses of Parliament, Nobility, Clergy, Burghers
and Peasants, the King frequently favoured the Peasants to counter
the ambitions of the Nobility. During the majority of the 17th century, the Nobility struggled to control the Government and expand
their fiefs, but were thwarted in the 1680s and consequently played
little role concerning forest tenure. Also King Gustavus III used the
peasants support in his struggle with the nobility and thereby gradually relaxed regulations in 1789 (main deregulation) and 1793 (beech
trees) (Enander 2007). All holders of tax land and crown tenants, who
in this regard were just as enfranchised as the landowners, were entitled to elect their representatives to Parliament. Once the Estates
were disestablished in favour of a two-chamber parliament in 1866,
the Estate of Peasants was transformed into a political grouping, later to become a regular political party, which only lost its character
in the late 20th century as a main vehicle for the political interest of
landowning farmers. This politically important group will henceforth
be referred to as Peasants; the term is not to be taken as connoting
a rural proletariat. The factual material in this section is derived from
Eliasson & Hamilton (1999) and Kardell (2003); however, the political
interpretation is that of the authors.
The interplay between the actors

Starting in the late 17th century, another theme
was successively growing stronger: the interplay
between Peasant, Crown and Company interests. Until recent times, Peasants represented a
social group with distinct lifestyle values, and
the Companies stood for organised commercial groups representing a modern, monetary
economy. In this perspective, the Crown acted
in its own interest, striving to strengthen reve-
18
nue and maintain political control of the country. While the socio-political development in
Britain, France and Germany can be seen as
a struggle by the Burghers to gain dominance
over the Nobility, a strong theme in Sweden was
(and is) the struggle of the Peasants to control
the ambitions of the Crown. With the advent
of the 20th century, a new group, the Workers
[arbetarrrelsen], gained ascendance on the po-
litical arena, and were replaced at the end of the

century by a much less organised and nebulous
urban middle class.
The ambitions of the Crown

The principal ambitions of the Crown have
mostly been political stability and maximal
revenue. Control of land has not been a goal
in itself; rather the governments, regardless of
whether royal authoritarian or democratic parliamentarian, have striven to increase tax income. This could be derived from mining or
farming, and later from saw milling and pulping industries. In earlier times, timber resources
could be allocated to mining and metalworking,
as Sweden was Europes only large supplier of
copper and a major supplier of iron. Forestland
could be used for new settlements that would
pay taxes or tenants dues later. However, the
Crown had a direct interest in the forest as a
source of oak and mast wood for shipbuilding,
and heavy beams for construction. To obtain
this, it maintained regale rights to such timber wherever it was found, except from the
Nobilitys tax exempted land. During the 20th
century the governments strove to protect and
increase forest resources and even tried to force
forest owners to fell in order to supply the important forest industry with feedstock, as in the
1970s.
The goal of the Peasants

The Peasants primary long-term goal was to
free their land use from governmental control.
Up to the 19th century, the peasantry showed
4 Leading actors in Swedish forest tenure policy
no interest in changing the form of tenure, as

forest products were mainly used for subsistence
purposes. However, a few decades before the
forest attained commercial value, growing individualism prompted landowning peasants to
want to privatise forest commons along with refiguring their agricultural land. Once secure in
their tenure, the peasants first started exploiting
the now valuable timber resource, then, more
reluctantly, to employ modern management
methods in spite of the extremely long investment horizon in northern silviculture.
The Companies interest

The Companies interest in the forests was for a
long time indirect, as they wished only to procure sufficient pit props, fuel wood and charcoal
for mining and smelting. The technology was
extremely wasteful, and smelting works had to
be located where timber, not ore, was available.
From the second half of the 17th century, the
Crown reserved forest areas to support smelting
works, transferring forest commons and adjacent tax and tenant farms to support this, taxes
and fees were payable in the form of wood and
charcoal deliveries to the Companies as a form
of state subsidy. With the introduction of industrial forestry, the new Companies, now having
wood as a principal feedstock rather than as an
accessory, had better motive to control their
feedstock resources in the form of full ownership of forestland. For the entire 20th century,
Company forests had a predominant role in forest economy, but land ownership appears less of
a key asset at the end of the century.
19
(16501800)
Introduction of private ownership

of forest land
The transition from common to private ownership started with the
unsuccessful settlement programme provided by the 1683 forest ordinance and progressed slowly during the 18th century. New holdings
were established on forestland in the interior and the north. As there
was little use for the vast timber resource, other than for household
purposes, the Crown initially did not bother to define the exact user
rights that the settlers could exercise.
Customary tenure arrangements

Tenure arrangements up till the reforms in
1800 can best be understood through the two
dominions philosophy. The Crown made its influence over the forest felt in several ways, best
interpreted as a tacit dominium directum over all
forestland. Corresponding claims were never
made on tilled land, where ownership rights of
peasant and noble freeholds were unquestioned.
Most notable in its consequences was the regale,
mentioned above, or royal claim to ownership
of all oak trees (and some other trees), as well as
to large size coniferous stems suitable for masts
and major public works, on all land except for
the Nobilitys holdings. Freeholders as well as
crown tenants could be compelled to take part
in extraction and transport of this timber. This
regulation, valid just into the 1800s, caused
opposition from rural people and continuous
conflicts with the Crowns forest guards, and
resulted in widespread destruction of oak sap-
20
lings. Even if the saplings grew on the tilled

land, they could not be removed according to
the regale. The oak issue is discussed in detail
by Eliasson (2002).
Restrictions on traditional user rights

The first pieces of regular forest legislation in
Sweden were passed in form of two forest ordinances in 1647; one dealing with carrying trees
(including oak and ship building) and the other
concerning restricting wasteful logging practices and shifting cultivation in high forest (see
picture p. 15). Heavy opposition was weathered during parliamentary debates with the
argument that these ordinances infringed on
property rights and the same arguments were
raised two centuries later preceding the 1683
forest ordinance. Several royal commissions
worked during the second half of the 17th century with the main task of demarcating Crown
land, but also to regulate the peasantrys user

rights in the crown forest (Nylund 2009). The
Crown felt entitled to allocate forestland for use
by mining companies that were in need of wood
and charcoal for their operations. Although
taking place before 1683 the allocations were
regulated by an ordinance of that year (also allowing regular partitioning of Crown land for
settlement). This implied that companies obtained a non-exclusive dominium utile within
portions of forest commons, as existing user
rights of the population were not restricted.
Furthermore, with the allocations freeholders
and crown tenants were directed to pay dues
to the company, which regularly requested payment in kind, as deliveries of wood and charcoal, rather than cash.
With increasing population of rural people
using the forest for cultivation, grazing and collecting of firewood, together with an intensified
timber use by the mining industry, fears grew
throughout the 18th century that forest products
would not suffice all uses. Various restrictions
aimed at timber conservation were introduced
and enforced by the forest guards. In effect,
these restrictions clearly infringed on traditional user rights, as did the ever-growing use of
wood by the mining industry. However, later
evaluations (Kardell 2003) indicate that timber
scarcity and degraded forest stocks were mainly
a local and regional phenomenon in southern
Sweden, albeit much used as a political argument. This concern was general all over Europe,
and exploited for political purposes by various
actors wanting to bring the forestlands under
stricter control (von Below and Breit 1998).
With the ordinances of the late 17th century,
the Crown initiated a process of partition and
settlement that continued until 1926. Kvist
(1988) comments that the ordinance of 1542,
stating Crown ownership of all unsettled land,
aimed to open up the vast inland forest in the

northern part of the country for settlement,
despite being claimed as commons by coastal
communities. The partitioning created a need
for demarcation, which in turn designated
some land as exclusively owned by the Crown.
However, subsistence use of forest products was
permitted on most lands, the rules varying locally and with time as to the extent of marking
required by forest guards before felling.
Slow privatisation progress

The privatisation of forest preceded the profound change in mode of production, which
took place with the introduction of steampower saw milling from 1850, and gave the forest commercial value. As the history of silvicultural legislation highlights (Nylund 2009),
institutional change followed societal and economic changes. The driving forces of privatisation in forestry can thus be seen in relation
to the general modernisation of the Swedish
society.
The privatisation started with the unsuccessful settlement programme provided by the
1683 forest ordinance and progressed slowly
during the 18th century. New holdings were
established on forestland in the interior and
the north. Large areas, many hundreds of hectares, were demarcated, as the new farms were
to have animal husbandry as their main income, and patches of grazing land was widely
distributed in the forest. Early instructions
mention 150 to 400 ha, and 350 to 700 ha on
weaker lands. Actual property sizes ranged up
to several thousand hectares. As there was little
use for the vast timber resource, other than for
household purposes, the Crown initially did
not bother to define the exact user rights that
the settlers could exercise. The efforts to settle
5 Introduction of private ownership of forest land (16501800)
21
Illustration 1. The privatisation started with the unsuccessful settlement programme provided by
the 1683 forest ordinance and progressed slowly during the 18th century. Subsistence use of forest
products was permitted on most lands, the rules varying locally as to the extent of marking required by forest guards before felling. The royal claim to ownership of all oak trees led to a widespread destruction of oak saplings.
the interior were largely unsuccessful with

unclear tenure rights, and the homesteads were
abandoned due to the extent of labour required
to exploit and later restore the vast forests.
Seeing to the number of stakeholders, the most
important privatisation process concerned the
partitioning of the commons. The early phases
of this process are obscure, due to the lack of
sources (Eliasson and Hamilton 1999). The
Forest Ordinances of 1647/1664 order intensified demarcation of Crown land from commons.
The ordinance of 1734 19 discusses the use of
22
not partitioned common land in terms assuming

that individually held forest also did occur, but,
to our knowledge, there is no positive written
evidence of such land other than that of the new
settlements. However, Eliasson and Hamilton
(1999) report, that the members of the Estate
of Peasants had requested that partitioning of
village commons should be authorised in the
1734 ordinance, but did not gain enough support. And reading 11 of the 1647 Ordinance
on the Forests of the Realm closely, the legislator
actually deals with the establishment of crofts
on individually held land land that no rights

of other shareholders could be infringed upon.
Private forest tax land must have existed in
some form even then, as it is mentioned in the
legislation, but there does not appear to be any
empirical evidence of private forest tax land.
The legal terminology in older forest legislation is not consequent. The two Forest
Ordinances of 1647, republished in 1664, were
acts of the Parliament, and addressed only
specific issues such as demarcation, shifting
cultivation, mining companies, and carrying
trees. The 1683 legislation was issued by the
Sovereign only. The ordinance of 1734 was a
parliamentary act and aimed at addressing a
wide range of issues. The Forest Ordinance of
1793 and 1805 were also wide in scope, but issued by the Sovereign without assistance of the
Parliament. The very decisive legal text of 1789
(see below) was technically only a royal instruction regulating the conversion of Crown tenancies into tax land.
Law lagging behind

Starting around 1750, a major process of reallocating farmland [Storskiftet] had been initiated
(first royal directive 1757), mainly on landowner initiative, and following similar processes in
other European countries. The traditional settlement pattern meant core villages surrounded
by fields, where each household had its parcel
of land, implied serious fragmentation. The reform initially aimed at creating larger cultivation units, but in 1773 records from Karvia in
the province of Ostrobothnia tell us that timber
forest was included in one partitioning process

(Palo, pers.comm.). Partitioning maps from the
province of Nyland show parcels of forest distributed with the farmland between 1781 and
1802 (Tasanen 2006). Systematic research into
the archives would probably reveal many more
cases.
In 1800, the land reform went into a second
phase [Enskiftet] with the explicit goal of uniting all land of one farmstead into one continuous unit. From then on, land from the forest
commons was included in the demarcation,
and hence privatised. Nonetheless, parts of the
commons continued to exist, for which detailed
procedures and regulations were stipulated in
1805. (For more information about the presentday commons, see chapter 9.)
As this partitioning process went on and
private ownership in the modern sense de facto
took form, the law lagged behind. Yet, in 1789
a royal directive allowed crown tenants to gain
freehold or strictly speaking tax land status by
paying a fee. In this connection, it was essential
to specify which rights the freehold status implied. 2 states that forestland should be included in the property demarcation, and that the
forest could be freely used by the owner, 3 that
it could also be sold. These rights were immediately understood to apply to all other tax land
as well. The 1793 Forest Ordinance confirmed
the new policy, which was again confirmed in
clara verba in the ordinance of 1805: 18. So
may a tax farmer use his individual, legally demarcated or partitioned forest and land [sic] with the
full right of ownership and disposal (authors
translation).
5 Introduction of private ownership of forest land (16501800)
23
(18001850)
Accelerated privatisation of
non-partitioned forest
In Europe in the period after the Napoleonic wars, there was a fundamental move towards a new economic liberalism. For about a
century, this view dominated the Swedish political landscape. The
demographic development also accentuated the conflict between
time-old perceptions of everybodys right to products and benefits
from the forest and new ideas of exclusive usufruct by a legally registered owner. Forest tenure and forestry regulation were regularly
voiced during the sessions in Parliament during the first half of the
19th century. In 1823, the discussions culminated in a series of decisions. The reform was enthusiastically supported by the parliamentary
Estate of Peasants, the Burghers were moderately positive, and the
Nobility and Clergy were negative (Arpi 1959). Privatisation of nonpartitioned forest accelerated with the advent of new legislation [Laga
skifte] 1827, and 65,000 ha out of 160,000 ha registered forest commons were distributed to peasant owners, followed by a second stage
of the reform aimed at liquidating the Crown land ownership.
Private initiatives
In Europe in the period after the Napoleonic
wars, there was a fundamental move towards
a new economic liberalism, long advocated
by the ascending power of Britain, and away
from government-directed economic policies.
For about a century, this view dominated the
Swedish political landscape, regardless of other
political preferences. According to the liberalist view, private initiatives individual or corporate were seen as more efficient than state
management of the national forests. While
previous reforms aimed at transferring common forest to private ownership, a second stage
aimed at liquidating the Crown land ownership
24
(except for military and residential purposes) as

a matter of principle.
At this time, novel ideas of active and sustainable forest management were spreading from
Germany. A first Forestry Institute was established in 1828 in Stockholm by I.A. af Strm,
an enthusiastic advocate of the new thinking.
However, the long political struggle aimed at
reducing state regulation of private land use,
and rendered any kind of forestry legislation unthinkable during the rest of the period. Instead,
the small but growing corps of professional
Swedish foresters provided the Crown with forest management plans, inspired by the forestry
thinking of the Continent, aiming at sustainable timber production and multi-functionality.

As the companies holdings became larger, they
modelled their forestry organisations after the
State forestry organisation, with districts and
sub-districts headed by professional foresters
(Nylund 2009). All claims to the Crowns partnership in the commons were withdrawn. The
Crowns exclusive rights to oaks and other strategic timber had already been gradually relaxed,
with the last regulations being removed in 1830
(Eliasson 2002, p. 181). Out of 70,700 ha actively managed Crown forest in 1824, 45,400
ha were partitioned up to 1850 (Kardell 2003,
p. 117). The redemption of the Companies forest
allocations should be seen in the light of this
policy change. From 1811, it became possible
for Companies to redeem their forest allocations into tax land with normal property rights.
Under these legal provisions and until the law
was abolished in 1898, 330,000 ha were transferred into corporate ownership (Gadd 2000).
Illustration 2. While private ownership in the modern sense de facto started to form, the law lagged
behind. The demographic development accentuated the conflict between time-old perceptions
of everybodys right to products and benefits from the forest and new ideas of exclusive usufruct
by a legally registered owner. The transition in the north of Sweden is one example where the state
did not foresee an uprising conflict.
6 Accelerated privatisation of non-partitioned forest (18001850)
25
Exponential increase of property

prices
Whether privatisation would have proceeded as
it did is open to speculation, especially if anybody had been able to foresee the developments
after 1850, as illustrated by an anecdotal example
(reported around the year 1900 by the politician C. Lindhagen; quoted by Morell 2001, p.
124): The peasant Olof Jonsson in Hrjedalen
(southern Norrland) sold his homestead in 1781
to his son Jon for 67 Swedish dollars [riksdaler]
In 1811, Jon sold the property to his son Per for
267 dollars, who in 1840 sold it to his son Jon
for 1,100 dollars. After that, Jon received title
to 2,250 ha forest through the privatisation of
previously non-partitioned land; in these areas,
there had not been any demarcations of forest
before. In 1864, Jon sold the forest property for
40,000 dollars. Subsequently, the property passed through several owners in a short time, and
was acquired by the Voxne-Ljusne Company
for 300,000 dollars in 1872. Even at this price it
was a windfall, as the estimated standing value
of high-class timber on the land was 2.5 million
at the time of the acquisition.
Accentuated social conflicts

The short-term beneficiaries of privatisation
were the growing numbers of freehold owners,
some of which had owned their farmland for
generations; others were crown tenants redeeming their farms, and settlers in the interior and
the north. The reform implied increased limitations of customary use of forest resources by the
landless. In 1750, the number of landless households was 25 % of that of landed households (including tenant farmers). While the number of
landed households did not increase substantially
up to 1850, the landless households (including
26
crofters) increased four-fold, mainly because of

population growth from 2 to 3 million (discussed
by Gadd, 2000). The demographic development
accentuated the conflict between time-old perceptions of everybodys right to products and
benefits from the forest and new ideas of exclusive usufruct by a legally registered owner.
A number of European historians have
searched for hard evidence of social conflict. von
Below and Breit (1998) quote E.P. Thompson
in Britain describing the struggle against the
fencing, i.e. privatisation, of the commons in
Hampshire in the 18th century, and the harsh
Black Act of 1723, which stated death penalty
for some 50 different property related offences
and infringements. Britain was early with rural
privatisations, starting with the conversion of
commons into sheep grazing land in the 16th
century that caused severe rural proletarianisation (cf. More 1516), unrest and violence.
Sahlins (1994) described social unrest in the
French Pyrenees following privatisation of nominally royal domains in 1827.
In Germany, several researchers (von Below
& Breit [1998], Blasius [1978], Radkau [1983
and other works] and Mooser [1984]) have studied various aspects of the same process. Blasius
(1978) worked with statistical evidence on convictions from tried cases of forest crime. Eliasson
dedicates a full chapter in his book Skog, makt
och mnniskor [Forest, power and people] (2002)
to the discussions on forest crime. In Sweden,
the illicit use of forest was an issue in every
Parliament session between 1809 and into the
1870s, when company driven exploitative logging and take-over of peasant land became the
issue of the day.
In Prussia (northern Germany), privatisation and new silvicultural ideas led to a rapid
exclusion of large numbers of people from the
forestland. As rural people were still dependent
on the resource, regardless of tenure reform, the
number of forest crimes escalated. Court statistics give evidence of 1,000 convictions per
100,000 inhabitants in 1836, and nearly 2,500
at the peak in 1860 (Blasius (1978). This high
figure reflects a violent social conflict when the
feudal-style land-use patterns were replaced
with strict private ownership.
The corresponding figures on court convictions in Sweden were much lower. A crosscounty analysis shows median values of 38
convictions per 100,000 inhabitants in 1830
1834, 19.5 in 18501854, and 9 in 18701874.
Eliasson (2002) reviews the public debate, and
notes that tolerance to illicit use of forest successively decreased. The declining conviction
figures indicated that social control brought

with it a reduced delinquency in this.
Some county data provides evidence of a
higher conflict level. Skaraborg county in central south Sweden stands out with a very high
frequency (422 convictions per 100,000 inhabitants during 18301834, 134 during 18501854
but only 21 during 18701874) compared with
the national medians quoted above (all figures
quoted from Eliasson [2002]). Skaraborg was
not a region of early commercialisation, so the
data may express a social conflict over changing
forms of land ownership. Figures were relatively
high in other reasonably well-forested southern
counties, but not in the ones with the smallest
forest resources. In these counties, people may
have become accustomed to restricted availability of forest products for a long time, as existing
resources were controlled by owners well before
the early 19th century.
6 Accelerated privatisation of non-partitioned forest (18001850)
27
(18501903)
Full consequences of the transition
From the mid-18th century, the saw milling and pulp industry entered
a phase of rapid expansion. The total use of timber rose from 21
million m3 in 1850 to 40 million m3 in 1900. This period was highly
turbulent when the full consequences of the transition from forest
commons for subsistence to an exploitable natural resource became
obvious. The character of forest crime changed from adherence to
subsistence forestry on common lands to modern, economically motivated criminality. Many corporate law infringements, dubious affairs,
fraud, and exploitation of peasant landowners occurred, and much of
the accessible forestland was temporarily ruined. Illegal loggers operated with paid labour, forest fires were lit to cover up their operations
and as acts of revenge against landowners denouncing offenders to
the authorities. Simultaneously, the future value of forest and forest
industry became widely recognised and finally led to the breaking
of political blocks and the introduction of adequate and successively
stricter silvicultural legislation, starting with the first Forestry Act, of
1903.
Social consequences for the peasants

Besides the negative consequences for the condition of the forests, the public debate at the end
of the 19th century was particularly concerned
about the social consequences of the loss of peasant forestland, especially in the northern parts
of the country. At that time, the vision was for
prosperous farmers settled in Norrland to till
the soil during the summer and work in the forest during the winter. This is also the idealistic
picture of Norrland given in 1906 Nobel Prize
winner Selma Lagerlf s novel Nils Holgerssons
wonderful journey. However, efforts to settle
the interior were largely unsuccessful, and the
homesteads were abandoned due to the extent
28
of labour required to exploit and later restore

the vast forests. Forest work on company and
Crown land provided a basic income for the
rural population well into the second half of the
20th century, when mechanisation drastically
reduced the labour force required and caused
regional emigration to the urban centres along
the Norrland coast and the southern parts of the
country. The social catastrophe feared by many
never fully materialised, but the general sufferings of the settlers and the conflicts between
the little man and the heartless Company became a
common theme in lore and literature.
Economically motivated forest crime

Over time, the number of convictions declined
in the South, including Skaraborg, indicating
an increased acceptance of the new order, in
spite of the growing number of landless. With
the booming industry in the North, forest crime
increased in the two northernmost counties,
Vsterbotten and Norrbotten, in the 1870s,
but here the issue was economically motivated
crime, not social protest. The rural publics concept of common rights to forest is illustrated by
the widespread opinion that illicit use of forest
goods and benefits was not seen as dishonourable.
To provide a basis for new legislation, the
1855 Parliamentary Forest Committee conducted an enquiry into all county administrations.
One question was how rural people viewed the
illicit use of the forest. In traditional society,
theft was considered highly dishonourable.
However, the replies indicate that illicit use for
private needs, at least on crown and common
land, was considered acceptable, particularly
by the landless and was not considered dishonourable as theft was. The individual answers
showed a high degree of social awareness and
concern, whereas illegal logging for commercial purposes was considered as theft and thus
criminal. As later history shows (cf. Enander
[2000] on the debate on the 1903 Forestry Act),
the concept of exclusive forest ownership took
root rapidly once subsistence economy had been
replaced by a market economic system at the
end of the 19th century. The character of forest
crime changed from adherence to subsistence
forestry on common lands to modern, economically motivated criminality.
7 Full consequences of the transition (18501903)
Increased sawn goods and pulp

export
From the mid-18th century, sawn goods from
water-powered sawmills in the southern part of
the country were exported in increasing quantities. The total volume, requiring 75,000 timber
trees per year (Kardell 2003 p. 205), was small
compared to the size of the resource, and it did
not make the forest commercially valuable. The
first steam-powered sawmill was established
in 1849, in southern Norrland, and ten years
later, the saw milling industry entered a phase
of rapid expansion; from a total production of
1.4 million m3 in 1850, it peaked in 1900 with
12.8 million m3.
Production of mechanical pulp for papermaking started in 1857, and chemical pulp
started in 1872. In 1900, there were 65 paper
mills in the country (public statistics quoted
by Kardell 2004). In the first phase of expansion from 1890 to 1920, the output rose from
0.15 to 1.1 million tons. The quantity of timber required can only be estimated at around
2 million m3 in 1900, but was over 10 million
at the time of the first national forest inventory (19261930). The total use of timber rose
from 21 million m3 in 1850 to 40 million m3
in 1900, and remained slightly above that level
until 1950. From this quantity, the household
consumption remained at 16 to 20 million m3
into the 1930s (data on timber consumption are
from Arpi [1959]).
Companies buying rights from

the peasants
Logging operations were organised by sawmills
and logging contractors, much of the capital
coming from foreign investors (Kardell 2003).
During the early years of saw milling expan-
29
Illustration 3. During the second half of the 19th century, with an increasing value of the forest, companies approached the peasants with recent titles to extensive forest domains. Many corporate law
infringements, dubious affairs, fraud, and exploitation of peasant landowners occurred, and much
of the accessible forestland was temporarily ruined.
sion, the companies approached the peasants

with recent titles to extensive forest domains,
which up to now had no commercial value and
were used for grazing and winter fodder collection. In that situation, it was easy for the
companies to buy logging rights to all trees
above set dimensions cheaply, and for periods
of twenty to fifty years. The price paid was often
well below timber value, even in cases where it
appeared fair at the date of contract. New waterways were cleared by both companies and
the Crown for floating, thus opening up pre-
30
viously inaccessible forest resources. The land

was heavily cut, and neither the landowner nor
the company had any incentive for any silvicultural action on the residual forest.
Just as the illicit use of the former commons
was intensively debated by the public between
1809 and 1860, this new ravage of the forest
resource and the plight of the forest owners now
received as much attention. In 1890, the longest
lease period was restricted by law to 20 years,
in 1905 to only five years, as frequent cases of
fraud were reported.
Once the industry had achieved greater economic stability, and partly in response to the
frequent litigation over logging rights, companies started to buy land. This frequently took
the form of the company acquiring the entire
homestead, and then separating the agricultural land and reselling it to the original or another
owner. This became a problem especially in
Norrland, where at the same time settlements
continued to be established on former Crown
land, and in some cases quickly passed to company ownership.
The political climate was still in favour of
economic liberalism, and even the peasants
political representation was against any limitations of landowners right to sell to whom he/she
pleased. In the debate (cf. Enander 2000), it was
argued that restrictions on company acquisition
of land would lead to drastically falling property values. Finally, the negative consequences of
the companies becoming monopoly owners of
non-Crown forest in northern Sweden became
obvious, and a stop law to prevent further company acquisitions in Norrland was introduced
in 1906. Although the problems had never been
serious in the South, as the peasants forest
holdings were much smaller and there were
fewer industries, the stop law was extended to
the whole country in 1926.
In response to the rapidly increasing value
of the forest, the Crown changed its previous
policy of selling land (except for settlements in
inner Norrland) and started buying back land
in the southern part of the country. In 1870,
7 Full consequences of the transition (18501903)
the total area of managed productive state forest was down at 0.4 million ha; in 1946, with
ownership distribution being stable for several
decades, state forest comprised 5.6 million hectares, including vast areas in the interior of the
North that never passed out of Crown ownership and were not demarcated or managed in
1870.
Stop law also in Finland

In Finland, which was until 1809 a fully integrated part of the Swedish realm, privatisation
proceeded as it did in Sweden, but the growth of
the saw milling and pulp industry started a few
decades later. Consequently, company acquisitions were slower, and the negative experience
from Sweden made the legislators to pass a corresponding stop law in 1925, when only 7 % had
passed from private to corporate ownership. At
this time, family holdings accounted for 51 %
of the productive area and state forests for 40 %
(Ilvessalo 1927). As the Nordic countries, in
particular Finland and Sweden, socially and
technically were similar in the 20th century, the
resulting differences in forest ownership structure and the functioning of the forestry sector
have been small. Thereby the Nordic model is
characterised by the forestry sectors in Sweden
and Finland. Most of the empirical examples in
this report were built upon Swedish experiences, but in the past Finland was an integrated
part of the Swedish policy development.
31
(19031950)
Foundation of the Nordic model
The turbulent period with unsustainable forestry during the 19th century provided an impetus for stronger forestry research, improved forestry education, a national forest inventory (the first in 19231929),
and restoration and reforestation, the full benefits of which became
obvious only in the 1980s. Based on the future value of the forest
successively a stricter silvicultural legislation was introduced, starting
with the first Swedish Forestry Act, of 1903. The legislation required
the forest owners to replant after final felling. From that year, legislation and institutions were developed gradually, striving to utilise the
full timber producing potential of the forest land. This is considered to
be the starting point for the sustainable Nordic model, although the
tenure development still had a long way with a restoration process
before reaching maturity. The Government also achieved its two goals
with the tenure reforms during this period; one of fiscal consolidation by increasing the number of taxpayers, and the other of securing
political stability.
Exclusive forest ownership
The owner distribution
The concept of exclusive forest ownership took

replaced by a market economic system at the
end of the 19th century. When the owner distribution had stabilised around 1930 the result of
the tenure reforms was the creation of a quarter
million homesteads with 10 million hectares
of forest, all with legal title to their land. The
Government had also achieved its two goals for
the tenure reforms, one of fiscal consolidation
by increasing the number of taxpayers, and the
other of securing political stability. This was
particularly so, as the parliamentary Estate of
Peasants and the Peasants Party had political
influence during the entire period.
The ownership structure of productive forestland according to the first comprehensive property inventory in 19271928 appears in Table
2 (Statistisk rsbok 1931). By then, most reform
work was complete, colonisation in the north
had ceased and companies were prevented from
buying more peasant land. Thus, the outcome
was the creation of a quarter million homesteads with 10 million hectares of forest, all
with legal title to their land. Approximately one
quarter of the national forest area had passed
into company ownership, the majority of which
was originally unsettled Crown lands in the six
northern counties, distributed free of charge to
peasants and then resold at variable prices to
32
Table 2. Tenure of productive forest land according to

the 1928 property inventory
Northern Sweden
Property type
Peasant homesteads, etc.

mean holding, ha
Norrbotten
Vsterbotten1
Jmtland
Vsternorrland2
Gvleborg
Kopparberg3
36,145
26,575
39,820
Southern
Sweden
Whole
country
175,869
278,409
62.4
69.1
35.2
25.1
35.6
Other private holdings
22
1,319
1,331
mean holding, ha
1,117
538
552
2,255
1,838
1,402
4,414
9,909
25
710
734
Company, 1000 ha
1,135
2,087
1,266
1,380
5,868
State, 1000 ha
2,966
449
396
538
4,349
363
14
229
216
821
6,718
4,388
3,318
7,257
21,682
33.6
41.9
42.3
60.8
45.7
0.7
9.8
3.4
Company %
16.9
47.6
38.2
19.0
27.1
State
44.1
10.2
11.9
7.4
20.1
5.4
0.3
6.9
3.0
3.8
Peasant forest, 1000 ha

Other private, 1000 ha
Other public bodies, 1000 ha

Total area
Peasant forest %
Other private %
Other public bodies %
1) Norrrbotten, Vsterbotten: Forested inland settled by ethnic Swedes only after 1850.
2) Jmtland, Vsternorrland: Ancient nuclei of settlements in otherwise forested land.
3) Gvleborg, Kopparberg: Mainly forested but engaged in mining industry for centuries.
the companies. The company acquisitions in the

South (1.3 million hectares) mainly comprised
privatised peasant commons and were assumed
to have changed owners at more normal market prices. No available records show the total
number of homesteads partly or entirely taken
over by companies (Arpi 1959; Eliasson 2002).
8 Foundation of the Nordic model (19031950)
According to the 1928 property inventory

(Statistisk rsbok 1931, Tables 99 and 100),
more than 4.5 million ha of productive forest
in Norrland and Kopparberg counties were
in company hands after being bought from
peasants, whereas 5.5 million remained as peasant holdings. A majority of these 10 million ha
33
were unused (besides Sami use and the commons of the old coastal and river valley settlements) in the sense of royal claims of 1542 and
1683; now the Crown was left with 3.8 million
ha in Norrland and Kopparberg. In Vrmland
county, another 0.6 million ha passed into company ownership, and the areas in the South were
smaller. In the whole country, the forest sector
companies now owned 5.5 million ha, other
companies 0.3 million ha, larger estates 0.7
million ha, the Crown and other public owners 5.2 million ha, and peasants 9.9 million ha.
Government goals achieved

Government policy had achieved two goals, one
of fiscal consolidation by increasing the number
of taxpayers, and the other of securing political
stability. The rural population and the area of
agricultural land reached a peak in the period
between the two World Wars. During the entire period of settlement, forest was seen as a
necessary complement to farmland and pastures. The peasant labour force worked in the
forest during the winter, ideally getting both
the stumpage value and the income from felling. The forest policy during the first half of
the 20th century began with the assumption that
the normal rural household combined farming
and forestry for its sustenance. During this period, Swedens population rapidly increased: in
1750, it was 1.8 million, in 1810 it was 2.4 million, in 1860 it was 3.6 million, and in 1930
it was 6.1 million. The later increase occurred
despite the fact that 1.4 million people emigrated between 1860 and 1930. The number of
landed households (freeholds, crown and estate
tenants) rose from 178,000 in 1700 to 278,000
in 1928. This expansion did not solely account
for the population increase, but with at least 2
million people having landowning households
34
(assuming six persons per household; no household census data are available for the period),
political stabilisation was achieved. This was
particularly so, as the parliamentary Estate of
Peasants and the Peasants Party had political
influence during the entire period.
Restoration by means of motivation

Once secure in their tenure, the peasants started exploiting the now valuable timber resource,
then, more reluctantly, began to employ modern
management methods in spite of the extremely
long investment horizon in northern silviculture. The Swedish forests and landscape has
gone through a huge restoration process. The
Act of 1903 focused on replanting forests, but
also restoration of depleted forests. Examples
of issues to solve along the restoration process
were deforestation and extensive forest grazing
in the South, poorly stocked forests and poor
regeneration in the North. The success factors
of the positive development have been a strong
collaboration between researchers and practitioners as well as well organised education of
the small-scale forest owners.
Management of company land and the poorly stocked peasant forests needed consolidation
after decades of exploitation. Starting around
the 1920s, education by motivating the forest
owners to improve forest management was primarily made by the County Forestry Boards (the
origin of the current Swedish Forest Agency)
familiar with the local conditions. Coercive
and punitive action was only used as an ultimate corrective to deliberate law infringement
(Nylund 2009). The County Forestry Boards
also supported the restoration process by organising information campaigns and distribution of tree seeds. Public enlightenment was an
important part of the success story, especially
among schoolchildren. Approximately around

half a million children planted and sowed forest
land with restoration needs during the first half
of the 20th century. The forest management activities were done on a voluntary basis as well as
on a governmental decree (Sjberg 2011). The
increasing awareness among the forest owners
regarding the values of forest products facilitated the work of the County Forestry Boards
and the forest owners associations, which successively played a decisive role in guiding and
organising the small-scale forest owners (see
next chapter).
8 Foundation of the Nordic model (19031950)
Selective cutting had been the dominating silvicultural system in the North until the
mid-20th century. During this time the Crown
and the forest companies decided to restore
large areas by clearing of old degraded stands
and planting of the new ones. These restoration efforts proved successful and thereafter
the clear-felling system came to dominate the
forestry model in Sweden. This was also the
starting point for an intensified collaboration
between researchers and practitioners. These
factors were of great importance for the future
impressive increase of the standing volume in
the Swedish forests.
35
(19502010)
Multi-dimensional interests
From 1950, new patterns of societal change took place in Sweden;

strong opinions formed among certain stakeholders and values
among the rural population changed. Over the coming decades, mechanisation was introduced in large and small-scale forestry. The user
rights became stronger and the limitations of owner rights followed
the political climate with swift changes during the second half of the
20th century. The increased number of actors heavily influencing the
policy and new values among the forest owners resulted by the end
of the period in a forest policy reoriented towards multi-functionality.
Swift policy changes

By 1950, private forest ownership with farreaching, almost exclusive user rights had been
the accepted norm for two generations. Since
1903, forestry legislation had imposed limitations on owners management options, but
the Forestry Act of 1948 marked a turning
point regarding owners freedom of action, and
during the coming decades user rights became
stronger. The limitations of owner rights followed the political climate, with an increased
claim for socialisation of forests; even private
forest ownership was occasionally questioned
during the second part of the 20th century.
In 1950, the countryside was well populated and normal holdings were small, combining farming and forestry. During the coming
decades forest technology developed rapidly
and mechanised harvesters were introduced.
Kardell (2004) points out that forest operations
have lagged behind the development in other
sectors for a long time, the result being a rap-
36
id transition with deep social consequences. By

2000 mechanisation had led to lower employment in forestry and the non-resident, nonfarming had become an increasing part of the
owners. During second half of the 20th century,
living conditions and values of the rural population approached those of urban people. Income
from forestry comprised a smaller proportion of
the owners total income and many forest owners also lived in the cities (Ingemarson 2004).
Therefore, the word peasant has been superseded by small-scale private forest owner.
From the early 1970s, freedom of action was
restricted by external stakeholders demands for
yield production in accordance with the Forestry
Act 1948, amended in 1974 and notably tightened 1979/1983, and at the same time, a series
of amendments to the 1964 Conservation Act
contributed to further restrictions. After these
years, trends changed swiftly towards a more
liberal political climate, and within ten years
forest owners user rights went from highly

limited to less restricted rights regarding timber production. At the end of the 1980s, global
organisations started to set the limitations for
the owners rights in Sweden in different ways.
This, along with higher public commitment
towards the environment, strengthened user
rights. From the early 1990s, the forest policy
was reoriented towards multi-functionality and
a broader definition of sustainability, including
more equal economic, social and environmental
aspects.
Voluntary areas of joint operations

Politically, the Peasants Party and the Workers
Social Democrat Party had collaborated for
some time, and continued to do so. In 1952,
groups within the Social Democrats started
campaigning for collective management arrangements, or even outright socialisation of
the private forest. Their argument was that
small-scale owners did not manage the forest
efficiently. As the claim was not supported
by empirical references, the National Forest
Inventory was asked to investigate the situa-
Illustration 4. By 1950, private forest ownership with far-reaching, almost exclusive user rights had
been the accepted norm for two generations. The forest owners organisation started assisting
members with education and management, voluntarily forming areas of joint silvicultural operations. The Nordic forestry model is based on locally anchored mutual understanding.
9 Multi-dimensional interests (19502010)
37
tion. The results showed that both companies

and individuals had quite large areas of poorly
stocked and unproductive forest, especially the
small-scale owners. The survey prompted an intensification of restoration efforts. Particularly,
the forest owners organisation started assisting
members with education and management,
voluntarily forming areas of joint silvicultural
operations. This was necessary, considering the
fragmentations of the holdings and that the
main argument of the Social Democrats was
small-scale private holdings were too small for
the necessary mechanisation and other rationalisation of forest work (Enander 2003).
The environmental movement

The environmental movement strengthened
during the 1960s and a series of amendments
to the 1964 Conservation Act contributed to
further restrictions for the forest owners. The
State began assigning large areas for nature
conservation and recreation. Limitations in
owners rights were solved through voluntary
collaboration and compensation for infringements, but compulsory acquisition for conservation purposes was made possible. From the
early 1970s, owners freedom of action was
not only suppressed by new Forestry Acts. The
customary right of common access to private
land entitled the public to collect berries and
mushrooms on any forestland. Previously, this
had been seen as a concession to non-owners,
not involving economic loss for the landowner.
Now, the right was conceived as a claim on the
owner to grant certain services to the public.
In consequence, the use of fertilisers or pesticides was not allowed as it damaged the quality
of berries and mushrooms, and felling and soil
preparation was frowned upon as it made the
forest less pleasant for the public.
38
Stronger public rights

New entertainment activities, such as snowmobiles, mountain biking, canoeing, and the
collection of reindeer moss (lichen) for fodder
were added to the common access agenda. The
customary right of common access had a wide
political support and emerged even stronger
at the end of the 20th century (Kardell 2004).
Access for commercial gain has always been
viewed as requiring a formal agreement and
usually compensation to the owner, but the
limits of this non-codified right are increasingly
challenged, even in court. Tour agencies arranging rafting, canoeing and horse riding on a
regular basis on private land resisted all claims
for compensation. At the same time reindeer
management expanded in the North. Several
conflicts ended in court, and were mostly decided negatively towards the land owners. Even
so, the customary right of common access was
never questioned (Kardell 2004). Crucial for
the understanding of the tenure development
of common access to private land is the awareness that property rights have widely differing
significance to different categories of owners
(Stjernquist 1993), e.g. small-scale private owners, forest companies, communities and the
Crown.
Maximal production oriented policy

The socialisation initiative had never had wide
support, and had been impossible considering
the political collaboration between the Peasants
and Social Democrat parties. However, in the
early 1970s, the forest industry experienced a
short-lived boom resulting in an over-establishment of new industries. Accordingly, political
and company representatives repeated concern
over the small-scale forest owners not delivering enough feedstock to the industry. Coercive
measures were again discussed, this time by a

public committee that saw the forest exclusively
as a raw material resource that should be developed maximally, any other interests being
secondary. The committees radical recommendations were considered extreme and were rejected by the government, but the concept of
maximising value production was expressed
in a set of new legislation (the 1979 and 1983
Forestry Acts), implying regimentation of forest
owners action. Maximum and minimum limits
to felling, obligations for restoring low-productive forest, compulsory management plans, etc.,
were not detrimental to the owner who shared
the goal of intensified management. In some
instances, regeneration and road building were
subsidised, but the compelling laws meant considerable limitation of the owners freedom of
action. The role of the County Forestry Boards
changed from a participatory approach to hierarchical steering of the owners (Appelstrand
2012). The owners complied, but dissatisfaction was widespread, particularly among owners with different management ideas than those
prescribed by the authorities. During the 1980s,
production-oriented forest policy reached the
same regulation level as in 1780 (Enander
2003), but trends changed swiftly and one decade later the policy was more liberal.
User rights of the hunters

The development of the modern forest industry in the 1960s and 1970s, with an increased
area of young forest, increased the supply of
food resources for the Swedish deer population. During the 1970s, the moose population
increased dramatically. Towards the end of the
20th century, the moose and roe deer populations were so large that their grazing influenced
the landscape, for example with respect to the
mix of different tree species. Hunting created

excellent conditions for recreation, and the meat
was valuable; however, the damage caused by
deer on the roads and to the forest industry was
a problem. The consequences for forest owners
with a high population were a limited choice of
tree species and high costs for damage to plants
and young forest and for taking deer preventive
measures (Ingemarson et al. 2007). Since the
end of the 1960s, moose hunting has been regulated by the County Administrative Boards,
but they only give recommendations and the
hunters collaborate with the local forest owners
on the level of shooting for moose reduction.
The relative strength between the two parts has
led to conflicts and even in 2010, owners rights
were still weaker than the user rights of the
hunters, who had strong support from hunting
associations having their own political agenda.
Shared responsibility
At the end of the 1980s, the emphasis on regulation for maximal production was relaxed,
following a more liberal political climate.
Conversely, regarding tenure, global organisations started to set the limitations for the owners rights in Sweden in different ways. This,
along with higher public commitment towards
the environment, strengthened user rights. The
policy was reoriented towards multi-functionality and a broader definition of sustainability;
including more equal economic, social and
environmental aspects. The changing attitudes
were politically manifested through new forest,
environmental and property legislation. The
new Forestry Act became valid in 1994, balancing economic, ecological and social interests.
For the first time in forest policy, biodiversity
and economical objectives had equal legal importance. Detailed regulations of operations
39
were replaced by increased owners responsibility with target-oriented rules; the private
forest owners had to take responsibility and set
voluntary areas aside for conservation, not restricted according to the law. The political pressure claimed that nature, cultural conservation,
and different user right ought to be taken into
consideration during all forest management
planning (Ingemarson 2004). During previous
legislation, many private owners had disobeyed
regulations while sharing the goal of high production, mostly to the benefit of biological and
scenic diversity (Kardell 2004). Now this behaviour received official approval by the County
Forestry Boards that again changed the policy
back to a participatory approach.
From an international perspective, the
Swedish 1994 Forestry Act was of a high
standard, and built upon a stable framework,
e.g. the Brundtland Report and the UN
Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. When
the 1994 Forestry Act was passed, the National
Board of Forestry began developing work with
green forest management plans; simultaneously
other organisations worked with corresponding
plans. In the green management plan, every
compartment is assigned a goal class describing
the direction of the long-term goals aimed at
production or conservation, in accordance with
the Act (Ingemarson 2004).
Increased NGO influence

With changed emphasis of the national legislation, another strong external factor restricted
the freedom of forest owners action in the form
of pressure from local and global non-governmental organisations, sometimes with their
own political agenda (Srlin 1991, p. 233 ff.).
Some environmental organisations have a his-
40
tory of limiting forest ownership rights and

criticising the Swedish silvicultural model. The
lack of environmental consideration during
forest management were criticised by several
environmental organisations during the 1980s
resulting in improved consideration for conservation, smaller clear-cuts and limited use
of chemicals. Another result was a reoriented
policy towards a broader definition of sustainability; including more equal economic, social
and environmental aspects. By the end of the
studied period, the state had set aside 3 million hectares of protected forest areas for nature
conservation and 25 % of the total forest area
was exempted from forestry (Skogsstatistisk rsbok 2012).
The current model for protecting forest biodiversity is a combination of designated protected forest areas and general environmental
consideration in the day-to-day management
(e.g. buffer zones and group of trees) (KSLA
2009). Although the environmental movement
has been critical, the international perspective
of Swedish forest owners responsibilities and
obligations is that they stand on a high level.
Third party (independent control) forest
certification schemes are examples of non-governmental policy tools, partly market driven,
developed to set standards at a higher level than
legal ones in an open negotiation process. Forest
certification could be seen as one of several external influences on the forest owners right.
Thereby certification is a complement to the
national laws but a result of action from stakeholder groups dissatisfied with the national
laws. The phenomenon of public decision making where organisations and interest groups
outside the formal democratic system strongly
influence the outcome, is further analysed by
Habermas (1996).
Third-party forest certification

schemes
Forest management certification should promote sustainable forest management from an
environmental, economic and social perspective. Swedish enterprises have been at the forefront of national and international certification
schemes for the forestry sector, as part of the
drive to promote timber as a sustainable raw
material. Two international third-party certification schemes came into force in Sweden
during the last decade of the 20th century, covering about 11 million hectares of forest: the
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) system and
the PEFC (Pan European Forest Certification)
scheme. These two are similar with regard to
forest management, but the FSC system is more
transparent and had a wider non-owner stakeholder interaction during the development of
the standard. The environmental and economic
requirements are also similar, but there are differences regarding social issues. The FSC system demands further consultations with indigenous people and local villages, whereas PEFC
demands a certificate for the contractors. The
forest owners associations were active during
the creation of the national FSC standard, but
decided to leave the collaboration to follow the
European scheme PEFC. The Swedish government was not involved in the process, as certification was seen as a non-state market driven
tool, although the green management plan was
developed by the National Board of Forestry in
accordance with the requirement of the FSC
system. A certification code ensures the market
that the wood comes from sustainably managed
sources, but whether the certification systems
are market driven is questionable, as NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs) use the
market mechanisms to promote the schemes. A
third-party international certification scheme

requires certain conservativeness to become
trustworthy, and has to address recognised
global issues. In a society with a mature forest
economy, and a high level of legal compliance
by landowners and contractors, development
might be more rapid and graded than a certification scheme can handle.
Owner associations and commons

By the end of the 20th century the forest owners associations in Sweden had their own saw
mills, investments in the energy sector, and the
largest association had its own pulp industry.
Although it has been questioned if is suitable to
assist the forest owners with both a selling and
a buying organisation the owners associations
were well organised. Ninety thousand holdings,
including 6.3 million ha of forest (54 % of total
small-scale privately owned productive forest
land), belonged to an association in year 2000
(Skogsstatistisk rsbok 2000), representing a considerable political power.
The present-day commons are an institution
that has survived for hundreds of years, despite
the many changes in rules and regulations. At
the end on the last century, the commons covered some 730,000 ha and the share of productive forest was 2.5 % of the Swedish forest
(Carlsson 1995). The present-days commons do
not operate as companies, have their own legal
regulations, and are based on private ownership, as the joint owners own different shares
that can be passed on to the next generation.
Common forestlands are often well integrated
in local society and the main goals are for sustainable return and to use profit to support the
local infrastructure.
41
Changes in the ownership groups

In public statistics, forest ownership in Sweden
was classified into four groups: private forests,
company forests, state-owned forests, and community forests. The proportions between the
groups have not changed since the 1928 property inventory; however, within the groups
notable changes have taken place.
The Crown recently placed (1994/2001)
most of its productive land in a state owned
commercial company, Sveaskog, producing
timber for an open market with nearly 5 million ha of forest. This land includes the Crown
parks, acquired in the 19th century, and land
that was never settled. Direct state ownership
applies only to land with cultural, environmental or military interest, that is 0.9 million
hectares. The public expects the state-owned
company to maintain a higher environmental
and social profile than any other owner, reflecting the ideals from the 19th century where the
Crown parks were supposed to lead silvicultural
development.
The private company holdings, 3.4 million
ha, have been subject to land exchange in order to create more rational units. The merges
have resulted in just three large owners besides Sveaskog: Stora Enso, SCA and Holmen.
In 2004, Stora Enso together with a smaller
company, Korsns, placed their land in a public company, Bergvik, thus separating pulp,
paper and saw milling from silviculture. The
community forests encompass 1.7 million ha,
and include forestland belonging to church
parishes, municipalities, public foundations,
and some non-partitioned regional commons.
Municipalities increase their holdings with
land for future expansion plans and for recreational purposes.
During the second half of the 20th century,
the total forestland area of the small-scale pri-
42
vate forest owners remained unchanged. In

2000, private holdings encompassed approximately 50 % of the total area of productive
forest in the country, some 350,000 owners of
about 238,000 holdings, with an average area
of about 45 ha of productive forest per holding,
totalling 11.4 million hectares. One third of the
small-scale holdings had non-resident owners,
and this did not differ over the country. Slightly
more than 40 % of all holdings had more than
one owner, with an average of 2.2 persons per
holding. Of single owners, 28 % were non-resident, while 43 % of the multiple owners were
non-resident (Skogsstatistisk rsbok 2000). Most
owners had inherited the holdings and the number of female owners is constantly increasing,
reaching nearly 40 %. These data illustrate that
owners prefer to keep the property in the family
and do not want to split it, even when moving
away, presumably into towns. Most small-scale
forest owners live in the South and control a
majority of the timber production in the country, while state and company forests dominate
the North. In the South, private holdings are
smaller, with greater diversity and productivity
compared to those in the north of the country
(Ingemarson 2004).
Value shift among small-scale owners

The structure of small-scale private forest ownership underwent profound changes during the
second half of the twentieth century, which
resulted in new approaches in forest policy
(Hugosson & Ingemarson 2004), following
the economic development in Europe as well
as in the United States (Fischer et al. 2010).
One major factor was the rapid rationalisation
in agriculture. Between 1964 and 1992, the
number of farms decreased by 60 %, mainly
due to fusion of holdings, and between 1928
and 2000 the number of forest holdings fell by

15 %. The proportion of farm holdings with
forest slightly increased from 65 % in 1964 to
71 % in 1992. During this process ploughed
land was separated from forest. In the early
1950s one-third of the forest holdings had less
than 2 ha grazing or farmland. At the end of
the period, in 1992, the corresponding figure
had risen to 72 % (Skogsstatistisk rsbok 1951
2010). The slow starting rationalisation of for-
est operations accelerated rapidly in the 1960s.

Income from work in the forest was important
to the farmer during winter when agriculture
was less demanding. Today, the typical forest
owner, farmer or not, does not participate in
thinning and final felling, but leaves that job
to contractors.
During the last decades of the 20th century,
reforms in legislation regulating the acquisition
of farmland and forest allowed non-residents
Illustration 5. The user rights strengthened during the second half of the 20th century. New entertainment activities, such as mountain biking and canoeing were added to the common access
agenda. A shift in values also took place among the forest owners and other interests, such as
hunting, tax planning and quality of life in the countryside, raised the prices of properties.
43
and non-farmers to buy forests. Previously,

property transfers were tightly regulated by the
Agricultural Boards, strictly pursuing a policy of agricultural rationalisation through the
creation of larger holdings. Membership in the
European Union resulted in lower agricultural
activity among farmers, and during the end of
the century farm owners strictly performing
forestry activities were in majority. The value
of the forest previously corresponded to the return from the forest, but other interests, such
as hunting, tax planning and quality of life in
the countryside raised the prices of properties
(Ingemarson 2004). Average farm prices and
forestland nearly doubled in the last ten years
of the century (Skogsstatistisk rsbok 2000). The
open market for forestland created new objectives among the small-scale owners, from pure
economic efficiency towards nature conservation and amenities (Hugosson and Ingemarson
2004), and forest owners are differentiated by
their objectives into five types according to
Ingemarson et al. (2006): the economist, the
conservationist, the traditionalist, the multiobjective and the passive owner. This confirms
that a shift in values took place during the
1980s and a sole emphasis on economic benefits
was not desirable for a majority of forest owners.
The current model is again contested

The challenges of the 21st century, with a growing mobilisation of rural people, infrastructure
development, global change, resources scarcity and a rush for land influence natural resource management all over the globe (KSLA
2012). The integration between global, national
and local stakeholders is expected to be fully
developed in a mature tenure system, but the
Swedish case shows that this is not an easy task
to fulfil. During the early 21st century, several
actors heavily influenced the policy, resulting
44
in a need of forest governance with informative dialogue platforms adapted to handle swift
changes with multi-dimensional cross sectorial
interests. The Nordic countries, particularly
Sweden and Finland, appear to have reached
an age of maturity regarding forest ownership.
However, a closer look reveals a partly dramatic transition from the tenure forms of traditional society into present-day forms, and the
current ownership model is again contested.
This was amply illustrated when a leading
daily, Dagens Nyheter, published a highly critical series of articles on Swedish forestry in the
summer 2011. Another example is the Swedish
Committee on Environmental Objectives that
developed a strategy for the long-term sustainable land use in Sweden during this period.
Nilsson (2012) carries out an evaluation of
the existing forest policy with an international
outlook. The establishment of a national programme, taking a holistic view of forestry and
the forest sector (the sector policies incorporated with the forest policies), and interaction
with the society at a broad scale, is suggested to
improve the Swedish forest policy.
A mature model involves diversified policy
tools such as regulative instruments and informative dialogue platforms that should be able
to handle a broad participation and interact
with different stakeholders. A multi-purpose
tenure model should also be able to implement
the forest policy through silvicultural practices
adapted to the different objectives of the forest
owners. Hrnfeldt and Ingemarson (2006)
show that currently used practices handle the
economical objectives well, but cannot fulfil the
requirements considering other policy issues,
such as amenities and conservation objectives.
The result shows the need of evaluating and
developing alternative silvicultural practices
through research in close collaboration with
the policymakers.
10
The transition in the North

and Sami tenure
The transition in the north of Sweden is one example where the state
did not foresee an uprising conflict, as forestry, farming and reindeer
herding were considered to co-exist. Some 17,000 people in Sweden
are recognised as Sami, an indigenous ethnic group with legal minority status. Today, all Swedish Sami are fully integrated in the society.
The Sami suffered most during the transition process, and their past
and present tenure and user rights to northern forests and uplands
continue to be subject of controversy. There are several different
perspectives on this, which are further developed in Nylund and
Ingemarson (2008).
Sami rights
Sami rights to hunting and annual husbandry
were recognised in medieval royal decrees and
traditional law. By the beginning of modern
times (after 1500), the Sami people paid tax
on a village basis for the use of wide, demarcated tracts of upland in the north, and their
tenure rights were recognised by the Crown
in subsequent tax reforms. At the end of the
18th century, reindeer husbandry was the main
livelihood for most Swedish Sami, occupying
uplands in summer and lichen-bearing forest in
wintertime. The move to colonise the North accelerated during the 19th century and was bound
to conflict with Sami tenure rights. At a time
when ethnic Swedish peasants obtained modern
ownership rights to forest land, based on customary user rights, the county authorities, administrating the partitioning, disregarded the
corresponding user rights of the Sami, ignor-
10 The transition in the North and Sami tenure
ing the tax and tenure arrangements previously

acknowledged by the Crown. No royal or parliamentary decisions to this end were issued;
instead, it is assumed that the county administrators, unopposed, saw the overriding interest
of the nation opening the North to farming
as a guideline. Tenure conflicts concerning tax
land redistribution ought to have been settled
in the district courts; however, the partitioning
process was handled by the County authorities,
a procedure used only when Crown land was
involved exclusively (Korpijaakko 1989). Ethnic
attitudes undoubtedly prevailed; however, any
Sami who wished to settle had the same rights
to a homestead in the partitioning as everyone
else. (In the European overseas colonies, indigenous tenure rights were normally not recognised by the new rulers as anything but temporal arrangements, with the exception of the
45
highly developed India.) The plight of the Sami

was increasingly brought to public attention, resulting in the Act of 1886, which established
specific user rights of recognised Sami villages.
This legislation has been updated to some extent, but the basic tenets are still valid. At the
same time society in general, the Sami community, and the reindeer husbandry underwent
major changes. Several issues prevailed at the
early 21st century: ownership rights, reindeer
herding rights and indigenous peoples rights.
In a major legal process, Skattefjllsmlet,
the Crowns ownership of a wide upland area
was contested by some Sami individuals. Even if
the Supreme Court decided (in 1981) to uphold
the Crowns claims in this specific case after
ten years litigation, more cases will be brought
up. The basic issue is whether it can be justified that customary tenure rights are converted
into modern property rights for ethnic Swedes,
when corresponding rights are not recognised
regarding ethnic Sami. On the other hand, restitution would imply handing over vast tracts of
land to the few Sami able to prove their claims,
without redress to the rest of the community.
Reindeer herding rights

According to the 1886 legislation, reindeer
herding rights, including rights to winter grazing in 25 % of Swedens productive forests regardless of ownership, are exclusively held by
recognised Sami villages. However, only some
2,500 people out of the 17,000 in the Sami
community are members of these villages, and
membership is not readily conceded to nonfamily newcomers. Established members have
the decisive vote in each individual case of ap-
46
plication. Efforts to redress the injustice of the

general partitioning through extending a different kind of user rights have resulted in creating
only a favoured minority.
As lichens growing on trees are essential
as winter forage for reindeer, the 1886 Act entitled the reindeer keepers to herd their animals
in lowland forest designated as the reindeer
management area, regardless of ownership. This
area comprises about the northernmost 1/3 of
all productive forestland. The law expects conflicting interests to be settled by negotiation. In
the beginning, when both forestry and reindeer
husbandry were less intensive, few clashes of interest occurred. Over time, they have become
more frequent, especially during the second
half of the 20th century. Recent Government
reviews (SOU 1999:25 and 2006:14) have dealt
with some aspects of the issue, as forestry and
reindeer husbandry has adopted modern technology and intensified the use of the natural
resources. The forest owners are obliged to
consider the needs of the reindeer husbandry
during forest management and to accept reindeer on their properties, even though the herds
sometimes cause damage to the forest regeneration. Both international agreements, expressed
in ILO convention No. 169, and certification requirements, as expressed by FSC, are
becoming contradictory on the conservation
profile and social rights. In a situation where
non-reindeer owning forest owners (regardless
of ethnicity) may suffer considerable intrusion
and even damage because of present rights, and
where the privileged reindeer owners represent only a minor part of the indigenous ethnic
group, it is not self-evident that reindeer owners rights should be further extended.
11
Lessons learned from the transition

in Sweden
The different phases of the development presented in this report

can be recognised in other countries all over the globe, although the
length of the phases varies widely depending of the countrys natural
conditions, history and governance. The first tenure reforms aimed
at transferring common forest to private ownership, and the second
stage aimed at liquidating the Crown land, following the political development in the rest of Europe. Decisive for the tenure transformation process in Sweden was a theme successively growing stronger:
the interplay between Peasant, Crown and Company interests. The
Government had two goals for the tenure reforms, one of fiscal consolidation by increasing the number of taxpayers, and the other of
securing political stability. The population increased rapidly during
the transition from common to private ownership between 1683
and 1950. Alienation of peasant land, regardless of whether it occurs
through economic change or after expropriation for public use, tends
to be socially disruptive.
A balance between possession

and user rights
Up till the end of the 19th century, the Crown
was exercising some kind of dominium directum
over all forestland, evident both through the oak
regale and its claim to one-third of the commons.
Noblemen, companies and tax farmers held dominium utile-style user rights.
After a century-long transition period, around
1900, the idea of inviolable private ownership or
dominium plenum had gained general acceptance,
whereas the late 20th century saw a reemergence
of dominium utile-style claims by external stakeholders; various public interests were recognised
11 Lessons learned from the transition in Sweden
as limiting exclusive property rights while formal

ownership rights were maintained. At the early
21st century, several actors heavily influenced the
policy resulting in a need of forest governance
with informative dialogue platforms adapted to
handle swift changes with multi-dimensional
interests. Thus, future successful forest policies
ought to take into consideration the different objectives of land ownership to different categories
of owners, and that user rights concern several
recognised users.
47
Social conflicts and economically

motivated crimes
As the partitioning process went on, private
ownership in the modern sense de facto took
form, and the full consequences of the transition became obvious, the law lagged behind.
Many corporate law infringements, dubious
affairs, fraud, and exploitation of peasant landowners occurred, and much of the accessible
forestland was temporarily ruined. Alienation
of peasant land, regardless of whether it occurs
through economic change or after expropriation
for public use, tends to be socially disruptive.
The first phase of the settlement programme
was not successful and progressed slowly with
many failures. The efforts to settle the interior
were largely unsuccessful with unclear tenure
rights, and the homesteads were abandoned due
to the extent of labour required to exploit and
later restore the vast forests.
Landowning peasants a political

power
The forest ownership structure in Sweden today reflects the main objective of the privatisation of forest land two hundred years ago; to
provide every homestead with enough forest to
cover it subsistence needs for major and minor
forest products. The redistribution of the forest
commons and Crown land occurred before the
forest had commercial value, which industrial
forestry created just a few decades later. In a
hypothetical situation of commons and Crown
land remaining intact up to 1870, the State
could possibly have retained a larger share and
favoured the creation of fewer and larger private forest estates. Then, perhaps a major part
of what is now private forest would have urban owners, e.g. conservationists, according to
Ingemarson et al. (2004). In reality, what hap-
48
pened was that the existence of a large class of

landowning peasants created political stability
in a situation where the number of rural landless grew rapidly and urban industry could not
absorb the surplus of labour. The forest policy
during the first half of the 20th century began
with the assumption that the normal rural
household combined farming and forestry for
its sustenance. The parliamentary Estate of
Peasants and the Peasants Party also had political influence during the entire period. The
peasants in Sweden have from an international perspective retained their political freedom
and a strong influence on politics and forest
governance. They have seen the value of the
forest resource and have been able to organise
themselves, representing a considerable political power. For the forest industry, the situation
could have developed less favourably, where
over half of the timber production capacity lay
in smallholdings, with owners whose main income was from agriculture and later industry
wages. A comparison with the United States
shows that the potentially very productive
pinelands in the Atlantic South East, where
there are numerous individual landowners with
little interest in improving the timber production, are less of a forestry area than the Pacific
North West is, which is dominated by public
and corporate owners enhancing the interest in
forestry among individual owners.
Inspirational instruments
The situation in Sweden (and Finland and
Norway with their similar development of forest tenure) is a different one, with high standards in both the 250,000 private holdings and
the institutional forests. Once secure in their
tenure, the peasants started exploiting the now
valuable timber resource, then, more reluctant-
The right of decision over the forest resources

The state
5
1
1300
1550
The peasant
1650
1730
1750
1820
1900
1980
2000
Year
The right of decision over the forest resources has changed swiftly during
the centuries following the political and economic development in society.
From: Eliasson (1997).
ly, began to employ modern management methods in spite of the extremely long investment
horizon in northern silviculture. The Swedish
forests and landscape have gone through a
huge restoration process and key success factors have been a strong collaboration between
researchers and practitioners as well as well
organised education of the farmers. This testifies to the success of the work of the County
Forestry Boards, with its concept of small stick
and large carrot in supervision and extension to
private forestry. During the early 21st century
the Swedish Forest Agency still played a pivotal
11 Lessons learned from the transition in Sweden
role in the implementation of the national forest policy, particularly among the small-scale
forest owners heavily supported by co-operative
movements. Following the same pattern, private timber purchasers also offered management packages, including counselling and
management plans adapted to multi-objective
forest owners. Without these instruments to inspire and guide the forest owners, progressive
forestry legislation would not have achieved the
success of todays forest production, 100 million
m3 growth and 90 million m3 actual cutting on
22.6 million ha of productive forestland.
49
Well defined roles
Globally recognised phases
The concept of exclusive forest ownership took

replaced by a market economic system. Today
the Swedish forestry framework is stable and
well developed. The ownership structure and
their roles are well defined. The well-established institutions require that partners can
foresee the consequences of their actions, and
thereby trust the agreements made. Continuous
dialogues with stakeholders and clear market
channels contribute to a sustainable tenure
system. The forest land use activities are surrounded by far-reaching rules and regulations
that are mature in the sense they can handle the
swiftly changing trends in society. However,
attitudes among stakeholders towards owner
and external stakeholder rights have changed
with the trends in society. Thus, future successful forest policies ought to take into consideration the different meanings of land ownership to different categories of owners, and that
user rights concern several recognised users. A
closer look reveals a partly dramatic transition
from the tenure forms of traditional society into
present-day forms, and todays ownership model is again contested. At the early 21st century,
several actors heavily influenced the policy resulting in a need of forest governance with informative dialogue platforms adapted to handle
swift changes with multi-dimensional interests.
The Nordic forestry model is mainly shaped by

the Nordic countries natural conditions and
constraints, their history, the knowledge, governance and experience of the forest owners
and the tradition of locally anchored consensus policies based on mutual understanding
(KSLA 2009). It should be mentioned that this
model is constantly criticised by certain stakeholders, in full accordance with a mature model
that should be able to handle a broad participation with multi-dimensional interests. Thus,
future successful forest policies ought to take
into consideration the different objectives of
land ownership to different categories of owners, and that user rights concern several recognised users. The authors share the view of Palo
(2006), that private ownership of forest is not
only compatible with but a contributing factor
to the success of the Nordic forestry model, and
that the experiences from the development in
the Nordic countries have a broader application
for forest policy globally. The different phases
of the development presented in this report can
be recognised in other countries all over the
globe. It has taken 400 years, and failures as
well as successes, to reach the current status of
the Nordic model, whereas China, for example,
aims to reach the same maturity through tenure
reforms within 40 years.
50
A note on sources
For the general narrative, some standard Swedish works have been consulted, listed below. As
they largely overlap, reference is only made here. Other references are shown as usual in the text.
Stridsberg E and Mattsson L, 1980. Skogen genom tiderna. Dess roll fr lantbruket frn forntid till
nutid [The forest through the ages. Its importance to farming from ancient to present time].
Eliasson P and Hamilton G, 1999. Blifver ondt att frena sig ngra linjer i den svenska skogslagstiftningen om utmark och skog [Hard to reconcile some developments in the Swedish forest legislation concerned unfenced grazing land and forest].
Eliasson P, 2002. Skog, makt och mnniskor. En miljhistoria om svensk skog 18001875 [Forest, Power
and People. An Environmental History of Swedish Forest 18001875].
Kardell L, 2003-2004. Svenskarna och skogen [The Swedes and the Forest], 2 volumes.
English-language accounts of Swedish forest politics from 1905 to 1890 are provided by Stjernquist
P, 1973. Laws in the Forests. A study of public direction of Swedish private forestry and by the same
author, 199192: Forest treatment Relations to nature of Swedish private forestry.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Secretariat for International Forestry Issues, SIFI, for their
support as a dialogue platform, the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry for financing the printing of the report. Without information officer Ylva Nordins excellent work and
the illustrations made by Mr. Pelle Forshed this report would not have reached the current quality
level. The authors are grateful for constructive remarks by Prof. Matti Palo, METLA, Helsinki,
Finland, and for access to unpublished material on medieval and early modern tenure and legislation in Sweden by Dr. Per Eliasson, Malm University College, Sweden.
51
References
Appelstrand M 2012. Developments in Swedish forest policy and administration from a policy of restrictions towards a
policy of cooperation. Scandinavian journal of forest research, 27(2), pp. 186199.
Arpi G 1959. Sveriges skogar under 100 r. Domnverket, Stockholm.
Bekele M 2003. Forest property rights, the role of the state, and institutional exigency: the Ethiopian experience. Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae Sueaciae, Agraria 409, Uppsala.
von Below S and Breit S 1998. Wald von der Gottesgabe zum Privateigentum. Quellen und Forschungen zum Agrargeschichte
43. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart.
Blasius D 1978 Kriminalitt und Alltag : zur Konfliktgeschichte des Alltagslebens im 19. Jahrhundert. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
Gttingen.
Carlsson L 1995. Skogsallmnningarna i Sverige. Forskningsrapport, Tekniska Hgskolan i Lule 1995:22.
Cornell E 2005. Frn hrskarmakt till rttsstat. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Eliasson P 1997. Frn agrart utmarksbruk till industriellt skogsbruk en lngdragen historia [From agrarian use of outlying
land to industrial forestry a protracted history]. In: Mnniskan och skogen: frn naturskog till kulturskog? [Man and the forest
from natural to cultivated forest]. Nordiska Museet, Skrifter om Skogs- och Lantbrukshistoria No. 11 pp. 4670, 139141.
Eliasson P, Hamilton G 1999. Blifver ondt att frena sigh ngra linjer i den svenska skogslagstiftningen om utmark och
skog. In: Skogshistorisk forskning i Europa och Nordamerika, ed. R Pettersson. Skogs- och lantbrukshistoriska meddelanden
nr 22. Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien, Stockholm.
Eliasson P 2002. Skog, makt och mnniskor. En miljhistoria om svensk skog 18001875. Skogs- och lantbrukshistoriska meddelanden nr 25. Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien, Stockholm.
Enander KG 2000. Skogsvrdslagen 1903 dess frhistoria och ngra huvuddrag i utvecklingen. Report 46, Dept. of Silviculture,
SLU Ume.
Enander KG 2003. Skogsbruksstt och skogspolitik 19502000. Report 54, Dept. of Silviculture, SLU Ume.
Enander KG 2007. Ekologi, skog och milj. Vetenskap och ider under 300 r. Report 4, Dept. of Forest Ecology and Management,
SLU Ume.
Fischer A P, Bliss J, Ingemarson F, Lidestav G and Lnnstedt L 2010. From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems:
the evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,
25:4, 390398.
Fritzbger B 2004. A windfall for the magnates. The development of woodland ownership in Denmark c. 11501830. University
Press of Southern Denmark, Odense.
Gadd 2000. Den agrara revolutionen 17001830. Det svenska jordbrukets historia, part 3. Natur och Kultur/LT:s frlag.
Garforth M and Mayers J (eds.) 2005. Plantations, privatisation, poverty and power. Changing ownership and management of state
forests. Earthscan, London.
Habermas, J 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Polity Press, Cambridge/Malden.
Heckscher EF 1935. Sveriges ekonomiska historia frn Gustaf Wasa 1. Fre frihetstiden. Stockholm.
Hoff A 1997. Lov og Landskab. Landskabslovenes bidrag til forstelsen af landbrugs- og landskabsudviklingen i Danmark ca 900
1250. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Hugosson M and Ingemarson F 2004. Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners; theoretical modelling and
qualitative assessment. Silva Fennica 38(2): 217231.
52
Hrnfeldt R and Ingemarson F 2006. Evaluation of Silvicultural practices from a multipurpose perspective. Baltic Forestry,
12(1): 8293.
Ilvessalo, Y 1927. Suomen metst. Tulokset vuosina 19211924 suoritetusta valtakunnan metsien arvioinnista. Metstieteellisen
koelaitoksen julkaisuja 11. Helsinki.
Ingemarson F 2004 Small-scale forestry in Sweden owners objectives, silvicultural practices and management plans.
Silvestria 318. Swedish university of agricultural sciences.
Ingemarson F, Lindhagen A and Eriksson L 2006. A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research, 2006; 249259.
Ingemarson F, Claesson S and Turesson T 2007. lg- och rdjursstammarnas kostnader och vrden. [Costs and values of the
elk and roe deer populations in Sweden]. Rapport 3. Skogsstyrelsen, Jnkping.
Jahreskog B (ed.) 1982. The Sami minority in Sweden. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
Kardell L 2003. Svenskarna och skogen. Del 1, Frn ved till linjeskepp. Skogsstyrelsen, Jnkping.
Kardell L 2004. Svenskarna och skogen. Del 2, Frn baggbleri till naturvrd. Skogsstyrelsen, Jnkping.
Korpijaakko K 1989. Saamelaisten oikeusasemasta Ruotsi-Suomessa. Oikeushistoriallinen tutkimus Lnsi-Pohjan Lapin maankyttoloista ja oikeuksista ennen 1700-luvun puolivli. Lapin korkeakoulun oikeustieteellisi julkaisuja. Sarja A;
3./Lakimiesliiton kustannus, Helsinki.
KSLA 2009. The Swedish Forestry Model. Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, Stockholm
KSLA 2012. The global need for food fibre and fuel. KSLAT No. 4-2012. Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry,
Stockholm.
Kvist R 1988. 1683 rs skogsordning och samernas jordgandertt. Oknytt 9:2124.
Lundmark L 2002. Lappen r ombytlig, ostadig och obekvm. Svenska statens samepolitik i rasismens tidevarv. Norrlands
universitetsfrlag, Ume.
Mooser J 1984. Furcht bewahrt das Holz. Holzdiebstahl und sociale konflikt in der lndlichen Gesellschaft 18001850
an westflischen Beispielen. In: H Reif (ed.) Ruber, Volk und Obrichkeit. Studien zur Geschichte der Kriminalitt in
Deutschland seit den 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main (cited from Eliasson 2002).
More T 1516. Utopia. Modernised source text on http://moore.classicauthors.net/Utopia/.
Morell M 2001. Jordbruket i industrisamhllet 18701945. Det svenska jordbrukets historia, part 4. Natur och Kultur/LT:s
frlag.
Nilsson S 2012. Future Swedish Forest Policy Process. Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www.sou.gov.se/content/1/
c6/21/35/84/5268fa59.pdf.
Nylund J-E and Ingemarson F 2008. Forest tenure in Sweden a historical perspective. The Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences. Dept. of Forest Products. Report No 5. Uppsala.
Nylund J-E 2009. Forestry legislation in Sweden. The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Dept. of Forest Products.
Report No 14. Uppsala
Olivetti A, Worsham J 2003. This land is your land, this land is my land. The property rights movement and regulatory takings.
LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, New York/ebrary.Inc.
Palo M 2006. Coevolution of forestry and society in Finland: from preindustrial to industrial forestry. Vuosilusto 20042005,
Punkaharju.
53
Radkau J 1983. Holzverknappung und Krisenbewutsein im 18. Jahrhundert. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 9:513543.
Renner K 1949. The institutions of private law and their social functions. Reprint, Routledge, London 1976.
Sahlins P 1994. Forest Rites: The War of the Demoiselles in Nineteenth-Century France. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Samerna ett ursprungsfolk i Sverige. SOU 1999:25 (Swedish Government Investigation).
Samernas sedvanemarker. SOU 2006:14 (Swedish Government Investigation).
Scotter G W 1967. The winter diet of Barren-ground caribou in Northern Canada. DATA.
Sjberg M 2011. Barnen, skogen och skolan. MISCELLANEA. Smskrifter Nr 10. Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien.
Stockholm.
Statistisk tidskrift [Public statistics journal], several issues around 1900.
Statistisk rsbok [Public statistics yearbook] 1931.
Skogstatistisk rsbok [Yearbook of Forest Statistics]. Swedish Forest Agency, Jnkping, years 1951 to 2012.
Stjernquist P 1973. Laws in the forests. A study of public direction of Swedish private forestry. Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum
Litterarum LXIX. Gleerup, Lund.
Stjernquist P 1993. Gr medborgarrtt fre gandertt? Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksa kademiens Tidskrift 132: 95100.
Stridsberg E, Mattsson L 1980. Skogen genom tiderna. Dess roll fr lantbruket frn forntid till nutid. LT:s frlag, Stockholm.
Srlin S 1991. Naturkontraktet. Om naturumgngets idhistoria. Carlssons, Stockholm.
Tasanen T 2006. Review of the forest history of Finland from the late Mediaeval to the end of the 1800s. Vuosilusto 20042005.
Punkaharju.
Original source material from

the Library of the Royal Swedish Academy of Forestry and Agriculture
Two Forest Ordinances of 22 March 1647.
Two Forest Ordinances of 29 August 1664 (reprints of the ordinances of 1647).
The Royal Directive of 19 December 1683.
The Forest Ordinance of 12 December 1734.
The Royal Directive of 21 February 1789.
The Royal Directive 10 December 1793.
The Royal Directive of 1 August 1805.
54
Utgivna nummer av Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademiens TIDSKRIFT (KSLAT)

(Titlar markerade med * publiceras endast elektroniskt p KSLAs hemsida www.ksla.se. Dr finns ven tidigare utgvor.)
2009
Nr 1
Nr 2
Nr 3
Nr 4
Nr 5
Does forestry contribute to mercury in Swedish fish?*

Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademiens verksamhetsberttelse 2008
Klassificering av sjar och vattendrag nordisk jmfrelse utifrn svenska bedmningsgrunder
Return to Eden future paths to sustainable, natural resources management
Landet utanfr landskapsestetikens betydelse fr den urbana mnniskan
2010
Nr 1 Vxtskyddsmedlens miljpverkan idag och i morgon
Nr 2 Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademiens verksamhetsberttelse 2009
Nr 3 Vindkraft, javisst! Men inte alltid och inte verallt
Nr 4 Skogsbrukets bidrag till ett bttre klimat
Nr 5 Internationell skogspolicy en versikt
Nr 6 International forest policy an overview
2011
Nr 1
Nr 2
Nr 3
Nr 4
Food security and the futures of farms: 2020 and toward 2050
Swedish-African forest relations
Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademiens verksamhetsberttelse 2010
Landskapsperspektiv hur gr det skillnad?
2012
Nr 1 Forskning och innovation fr produktiv och skonsam skogsteknik
Nr 2 Inte av brd och brdor allena en skrift om sknheten i naturen
Nr 4 The global need for food, fibre and fuel
Nr 5 Hsten i centrum hstens roll och mjligheter som samhllsresurs
Nr 6 Jorden vi rvde den svenska kermarken i ett hllbarhetsperspektiv
Nr 7 Export av skogligt kunnande frn Finland och Sverige
Nr 8 Dags att utvrdera den svenska modellen fr brukande av skog
2013
Nr 1 Sl, skarv och fiske om slars och skarvars inverkan p fiskbestnden i stersjn*
Nr 3 Framtidsprojektet. Ett tankeexperiment om naturresursbruket 2063
Nr 4 Matens kvaliteter
Nr 5 Global Outlook Future competition for land and water
Nr 6 Slam och fosforkretslopp
Nr 7 From common to private ownership forest tenure development in Sweden 15002010
55
To learn from failures as well as successes is crucial if programmes for landscape transformation and restoration are to succeed. The Nordic model, with stable institutions,
markets and clear rules for the actors based on a democratic system, creates a stable
ground for the development of a successful tenure system.
This issue of the Academys journal describes the tenure development in Sweden
during the last 500 years, using mainly Swedish-language material previously unavailable to an international readership. The aim is to identify different actors and stages
of the development, using possession rights and non-exclusive user rights as a point
of departure.
It is clear that private ownership of forest is a contributing factor to the success of
the Nordic forestry model. A closer look reveals a partly dramatic transition from the
tenure forms of traditional society into present-day forms and today the ownership
model is again contested. Once secure in their tenure, the peasants started exploiting the now valuable timber resource, and later, more reluctantly, began to employ
modern management methods in spite of the extremely long investment horizon in
northern silviculture.
18132013
Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry
P.O. Box 6806, SE-113 86 Stockholm, Sweden
(Visiting address: Drottninggatan 95 B, Stockholm)
tel +46 (0)8-54 54 77 00
www.ksla.se, akademien@ksla.se
The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry

(KSLA) is a meeting place for the green sector. The
Academy is a free and independent network organization working with issues relating to agriculture, horticulture, food, forestry and forest products, fishing, hunting
and aquaculture, the environment and natural resources, and with agricultural and forest history. We work
with issues that concern all and interest many!

From Common To Private Ownership

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

From Common To Private Ownership

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

From common to private ownership

Forest tenure development in Sweden 15002010

Swedens tenure system requires open

kungl. skogs- och lantbruksakademiens

Publisher Carl-Anders Helander, General Secretary and Managing Director, KSLA

Failures as well as successes during the last 500 years

The interplay between Peasant, Crown and Company interests

An exploitation of the natural resource

The law lagged behind

A huge restoration and reforest process

Forest tenure development in Sweden 15002010

A large class of land-owning peasants created political stability

A clear framework adapted to multidimensional interests

The different phases can be recognised all over the globe

Forest tenure development in Sweden 15002010

7. Full consequences of the transition........................................................................................................ 28

Forest tenure development in Sweden 15002010

The premise of the report

If programmes for transformation and restoration of landscapes

The forest a cornerstone in the

pulp and timber. Sweden was a poor country

Large forests characterise Sweden

The tenure development

The population of Sweden is about nine million

Land tenure regimes are intimately coupled to

1 The premise of the report

Interpreting the historical

tinction between on the one hand formal and

gale and its claim to one-third of the commons.

The process of modernisation in

In pre-modern Europe, the land itself was understood as a gift of God,

2 The process of modernisation in Europe

with its highly developed civil law never made

Later takeovers, such as the state-building

Ownership and user rights

case of minor infringements, while the peasant

From common to private ownership

or perceived infringements of individual or

economically sound units in many countries,

2 The process of modernisation in Europe

Traditional land tenure in Sweden

In Scandinavia, the feudal system gradually took root in the south

paying dues to the nobleman instead of to the

Forestland held in common

A rapid expansion of agriculture

to settle in sparsely populated forest areas. The

Table 1. Estimated number of rural households in Sweden

Land-owning households tax farmers

Crown tenant households crown farmers*

Tenant households on tax-exempted nobility estates

Total landed households

Landless rural households

Total population (individuals)

3 Traditional land tenure in Sweden ( 1650)

Leading actors in Swedish forest

The interplay between the actors

litical arena, and were replaced at the end of the

The ambitions of the Crown

The goal of the Peasants

4 Leading actors in Swedish forest tenure policy

no interest in changing the form of tenure, as

The Companies interest

Introduction of private ownership